Hubbry Logo
TransdisciplinarityTransdisciplinarityMain
Open search
Transdisciplinarity
Community hub
Transdisciplinarity
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Transdisciplinarity
Transdisciplinarity
Transdisciplinarity
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Transdisciplinarity is an approach that iteratively interweaves knowledge systems, skills, methodologies, values and fields of expertise within inclusive and innovative collaborations that bridge academic disciplines and community perspectives, to develop transformative outcomes that respond to complex societal challenges.[1]

While Multidisciplinarity involves studying a subject from multiple disciplines that maintain their separate identities, and Interdisciplinarity integrates these perspectives to create something greater than the sum of its parts, Transdisciplinarity extends beyond academia by involving societal partners in co-creating knowledge that combines scientific and practical expertise to develop solutions with direct impact on society.[2]

Transdisciplinary research

[edit]

Transdisciplinary research connotes research strategies that cross disciplinary and beyond disciplinary (social knowledge) boundaries to create a holistic approach. It applies to research efforts focused on problems that cross the boundaries of two or more disciplines, such as research on effective information systems for biomedical research (see bioinformatics), and can refer to concepts or methods that were originally developed by one discipline, but are now used by several others, such as ethnography, a field research method originally developed in anthropology but now widely used by other disciplines. The Belmont Forum[3] elaborated that a transdisciplinary approach is enabling inputs and scoping across scientific and non-scientific stakeholder communities and facilitating a systemic way of addressing a challenge. This includes initiatives that support the capacity building required for the successful transdisciplinary formulation and implementation of research actions.

Transdisciplinarity has two common meanings:

German usage

[edit]

In German-speaking countries, Transdisziplinarität refers to the integration of diverse approaches, and includes specific methods for relating knowledge in problem-solving.[4] A 2003 conference held at the University of Göttingen showcased the diverse meanings of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity and made suggestions for converging them without eliminating present usages.[5]

When the very nature of a problem is under dispute, transdisciplinarity can help determine the most relevant problems and questions involved.[6] A first type of question concerns the cause of the present problems and their future development (system knowledge). Another concerns which values and norms can be used to form goals of the problem-solving process (target knowledge). A third relates to how a problematic situation can be transformed and improved (transformation knowledge). Transdisciplinarity requires adequate addressing of the complexity of problems and the diversity of perceptions of them, that abstract and case-specific knowledge are linked, and that practices promote the common good.[7][8]

Transdisciplinarity arises when participating experts interact in an open discussion and dialogue, giving equal weight to each perspective and relating them to each other. This is difficult because of the overwhelming amount of information involved, and because of incommensurability of specialized languages in each field of expertise. To excel under these conditions, researchers need not only in-depth knowledge and know-how of the disciplines involved, but skills in moderation, mediation, association and transfer.

Wider usage

[edit]

Transdisciplinarity is also used to signify a unity of knowledge beyond disciplines.[9]

Jean Piaget introduced this usage of the term in 1970, and in 1987, the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CIRET) adopted the Charter of Transdisciplinarity[10] at the 1st World Congress of Transdisciplinarity, Convento da Arrabida, Portugal, November 1994.

In the CIRET approach, transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity, like pluridisciplinarity, concerns the transfer of methods from one discipline to another, allowing research to spill over disciplinary boundaries, but staying within the framework of disciplinary research.

As the prefix "trans" indicates, transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond each individual discipline. Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the overarching unity of knowledge.

Another critical defining characteristic of transdisciplinary research is the inclusion of stakeholders in defining research objectives and strategies in order to better incorporate the diffusion of learning produced by the research. Collaboration between stakeholders is deemed essential – not merely at an academic or disciplinary collaboration level, but through active collaboration with people affected by the research and community-based stakeholders. In such a way, transdisciplinary collaboration becomes uniquely capable of engaging with different ways of knowing the world, generating new knowledge, and helping stakeholders understand and incorporate the results or lessons learned by the research.[11]

Transdisciplinarity is defined by Basarab Nicolescu through three methodological postulates: the existence of levels of Reality, the logic of the included middle, and complexity.[12] In the presence of several levels of Reality the space between disciplines and beyond disciplines is full of information. Disciplinary research concerns, at most, one and the same level of Reality; moreover, in most cases, it only concerns fragments of one level of Reality. On the contrary, transdisciplinarity concerns the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once. The discovery of these dynamics necessarily passes through disciplinary knowledge. While not a new discipline or a new superdiscipline, transdisciplinarity is nourished by disciplinary research; in turn, disciplinary research is clarified by transdisciplinary knowledge in a new, fertile way. In this sense, disciplinary and transdisciplinary research are not antagonistic but complementary. As in the case of disciplinarity, transdisciplinary research is not antagonistic but complementary to multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity research.

According to Nicolescu, transdisciplinarity is nevertheless radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity because of its goal, the understanding of the present world, which cannot be accomplished in the framework of disciplinary research.[citation needed] The goal of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity always remains within the framework of disciplinary research. If transdisciplinarity is often confused with interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity (and by the same token, we note that interdisciplinarity is often confused with multidisciplinarity) this is explained in large part by the fact that all three overflow disciplinary boundaries. Advocates maintain this confusion hides the huge potential of transdisciplinarity.[13] One of the best known professionals of transdisciplinarity in Argentina is Pablo Tigani, and his concept about transdisciplinarity is:

It is the art of combining several sciences in one person. A transdisciplinary is a scientist trained in various academic disciplines. This person merged all his knowledge into one thick wire. That united knowledge wire is used to solve problems that include many problems. The decision of a transdisciplinary executive is the only one that takes into account the total resolution of a problem without leaving any loose thread.[This quote needs a citation]

— Pablo Tigani

Currently, transdisciplinarity is a consolidated academic field that is giving rise to new applied researches, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean. In this sense, the transdisciplinary and biomimetics research of Javier Collado[14] on Big History represents an ecology of knowledge between scientific knowledge and the ancestral wisdom of native peoples, such as Indigenous peoples in Ecuador. According to Collado,[15] the transdisciplinary methodology applied in the field of Big History seeks to understand the interconnections of the human race with the different levels of reality that co-exist in nature and in the cosmos, and this includes mystical and spiritual experiences, very present in the rituals of shamanism with ayahuasca and other sacred plants. In abstract, the teaching of Big History in universities of Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina implies a transdisciplinary vision that integrates and unifies diverse epistemes that are in, between, and beyond the scientific disciplines, that is, including ancestral wisdom, spirituality, art, emotions, mystical experiences and other dimensions forgotten in the history of science, specially by the positivist approach.

Transdisciplinary education

[edit]

Transdisciplinary education is an approach that integrates different disciplines in a harmonious manner to construct new knowledge and elevate learners to higher domains of cognitive abilities and sustained knowledge and skills. It involves better neural networking for lifelong learning.[16]

Transdisciplinarity has been flagged internationally as an important aim of education. For example, Global Education Magazine, an international journal supported by UNESCO and UNHCR:

"Transdisciplinarity represents the capable germ to promote an endogenous development of the evolutionary spirit of internal critical consciousness, where religion and science are complementary. Respect, solidarity and cooperation should be global standards for the entire human development with no boundaries. This requires a radical change in the ontological models of sustainable development, global education and world-society. We must rely on the recognition of a plurality of models, cultures and socio-economical diversification. As well as biodiversity is the way for the emergence of new species, cultural diversity represents the creative potential of world-society."[17]

Within higher education, transdisciplinary curricula and programmes have received increased attention as universities deal with the complexities of preparing students to tackle contemporary challenges and the future of work, with examples including the University College London's BASc and MASc degrees, the University of Hong Kong's Common Core Curriculum, the School for Transdisciplinary Study at the University of Zurich, the Olin College of Engineering, the Transdisciplinary School at the University of Technology Sydney, the School of Integrated Studies of Singapore Management University.[18]

Influence in disciplines and fields

[edit]

Arts and humanities

[edit]

Transdisciplinarity can be found in the arts and humanities. For example, the Planetary Collegium seeks "the development of transdisciplinary discourse in the convergence of art, science, technology and consciousness research." The Plasticities Sciences Arts (PSA) research group also develops transdisciplinary approaches regarding humanities and fundamental sciences relationships as well as the Art & Science field. An example of transdisciplinary research in the arts and humanities can be seen in Lucy Jeffery's study on the work of Samuel Beckett, entitled Transdisciplinary Beckett: Visual Arts, Music, and the Creative Process.[19]

Human sciences

[edit]

The range of transdisciplinarity becomes clear when the four central questions of biological research ((1) causation, (2) ontogeny, (3) adaptation, (4) phylogeny [after Niko Tinbergen 1963, see also Tinbergen's four questions, cf. Aristotle: Causality / Four Major Causes]) are graphed against distinct levels of analysis (e.g. cell, organ, individual, group; [cf. "Laws about the Levels of Complexity" of Nicolai Hartmann 1940/1964, see also Rupert Riedl 1984]):[20]

Causation Ontogeny Adaptation Phylogeny
Molecule
Cell
Organ
Individual
Group
Society

In this "scheme of transdisciplinarity", all anthropological disciplines (paragraph C in the table of the pdf-file below), their questions (paragraph A: see pdf-file) and results (paragraph B: see pdf-file) can be intertwined and allocated with each other for examples how these aspects go into those little boxes in the matrix.[21] This chart includes all realms of anthropological research (no one is excluded). It is the starting point for a systematical order for all human sciences, and also a source for a consistent networking and structuring of their results. This "bio-psycho-social" orientation framework is the basis for the development of the "Fundamental Theory of Human Sciences" and for a transdisciplinary consensus. (In this tabulated orientation matrix the questions and reference levels in italics are also the subject of the humanities.). Niko Tinbergen was familiar with both conceptual categories (i.e. the four central questions of biological research and the levels of analysis), the tabulation was made by Gerhard Medicus. Certainly, a humanist perspective always involves a transdisciplinary focus. A good and classic example of mixing very different sciences was the work developed by Leibniz in seventeenth-eighteenth centuries in order to create a universal system of justice.[22]

Health science

[edit]

The term transdisciplinarity is increasingly prevalent in health care research and has been identified as important to improving the effectiveness and efficiency in health care.[23] Transdisciplinary within public health emphasizes integrating diverse individuals, skills, perspectives, and expertise across disciplines to dissolve traditional boundaries and develop holistic approaches linking ecosystem and human health boundaries.[24]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Transdisciplinarity

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Transdisciplinarity is a mode of knowledge production that surpasses the integration of academic disciplines by incorporating non-academic stakeholders and transcending conventional boundaries to generate holistic solutions for complex societal challenges, such as sustainability and public health crises. Originating in the late 20th century as a response to the limitations of siloed disciplinary research, the term was first introduced in 1970 during a seminar on interdisciplinarity organized by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), building on earlier critiques of fragmented knowledge systems in education and science. Key proponents, including epistemologist Jean Piaget and physicist Basarab Nicolescu, emphasized its aim to unify diverse perspectives through a shared reality that acknowledges multiple levels of complexity, contrasting with multidisciplinarity (parallel contributions without synthesis) and interdisciplinarity (blending disciplinary methods within academia). In practice, transdisciplinarity employs collaborative processes involving researchers, practitioners, and affected communities to co-produce actionable knowledge, often applied to "wicked problems" that resist single-discipline analysis, with examples including integrated environmental policy-making and reforms. Despite its promise for causal understanding of interconnected systems, transdisciplinarity has faced for ambiguous definitions that hinder rigorous and , potentially leading to unfocused efforts or overreliance on subjective stakeholder inputs without sufficient empirical validation. Empirical assessments remain sparse, with challenges in measuring outcomes attributable to its boundary-crossing nature, though case studies in fields like demonstrate enhanced problem-solving when disciplinary rigor is maintained alongside .

Conceptual Foundations

Definitions and Core Principles

Transdisciplinarity refers to a mode of and production that surpasses the confines of individual disciplines, aiming to unify diverse forms of —including scientific, humanistic, artistic, and spiritual—through a holistic framework that addresses complex, real-world problems beyond fragmented disciplinary silos. Unlike mere across fields, it posits a transcending unity that reveals interconnections and emergent insights not accessible within siloed expertise. This approach emerged as a response to the limitations of specialized in tackling multifaceted societal challenges, emphasizing mutual learning among academics and non-academic such as practitioners and policymakers. Central to transdisciplinarity, as formalized by physicist Basarab Nicolescu, are three foundational axioms derived from quantum physics and . The first axiom asserts the existence of multiple levels of reality, each governed by its own distinct logic and irreducible to others, necessitating a pluralistic rather than reductionist unification. The second introduces the "included middle," a logic that embraces both unity and diversity without resolving contradictions into binary oppositions, allowing for the "hidden third" that bridges apparent incompatibilities. The third axiom underscores inherent complexity, where interactions across levels produce unpredictable emergences that demand nonlinear thinking over linear causality. These axioms provide a rigorous methodological basis, enabling transdisciplinarity to generate knowledge applicable to "wicked" problems like or health crises, where disciplinary tools alone falter. The Charter of Transdisciplinarity, adopted in 1994 at the First World Congress in , elucidates additional core principles, rejecting reductive views of humanity and advocating for open rationality that integrates with , sensibility, and transcultural perspectives. It promotes rigor alongside tolerance, affirming dignity across planetary and cosmic scales while critiquing dogmatic refusals of , and extends to ethical imperatives like an oriented toward rather than . This framework insists on contextual and the equal valuation of all cultures, positioning transdisciplinarity as a transcultural endeavor that fosters synthesis without subsuming diversity into uniformity. Empirical applications, such as in sustainability research, demonstrate its emphasis on co-production of "socially robust" knowledge, accountable to both scientific validity and practical efficacy.

Distinctions from Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Disciplinarity

Disciplinarity represents the conventional scholarly , wherein and production occur strictly within the confines of a single academic field, adhering to its established methodologies, theories, and epistemological boundaries. Multidisciplinarity advances this by assembling expertise from multiple disciplines to address a common issue, yet maintains disciplinary silos, with contributors applying their respective tools in parallel or sequentially without substantive synthesis or boundary-crossing. For instance, in health research teams addressing , multidisciplinary approaches involve independent specialists from fields like and offering additive but uncoordinated inputs. Interdisciplinarity, by comparison, demands active integration, wherein scholars from diverse fields collaborate to harmonize methods, concepts, and findings, producing emergent insights that transcend individual disciplinary contributions. This interactive process blurs disciplinary edges, as seen in coordinated service plans where professionals jointly develop unified protocols. Transdisciplinarity surpasses by dissolving disciplinary frameworks entirely, incorporating non-academic actors—such as policymakers, community representatives, and industry practitioners—into co-creative processes that generate practical, context-specific solutions to "wicked" societal challenges. This holistic orientation emphasizes mutual learning between scientific and , often yielding role expansions where participants share responsibilities beyond their origins. The distinctions can be summarized as follows:
ApproachCore MechanismDegree of Boundary TranscendenceKey Actors Involved
DisciplinarityIsolated application within one fieldNoneDiscipline-specific experts
MultidisciplinarityParallel disciplinary contributionsMinimalMultiple academic specialists
Synthesis of disciplinary elementsPartial (blurring)Collaborating academics
TransdisciplinarityCo-generation beyond academiaFull (dissolution)Academics, stakeholders, practitioners
These categories exist on a continuum of increasing integration and inclusivity, though empirical evaluations reveal ambiguities in application, with transdisciplinarity particularly challenging to operationalize due to its reliance on stakeholder dynamics.

Historical Development

Origins in Mid-20th Century Critiques

The mid-20th century witnessed growing critiques of academic disciplinarity's fragmentation and over-specialization, which scholars argued impeded holistic understanding of complex phenomena amid post-World War II advancements in . These critiques emphasized how disciplinary silos fostered , redundancy, and ethical oversights, failing to integrate knowledge for real-world problem-solving. For instance, C.P. Snow's Rede Lecture, "," highlighted the chasm between scientific and humanistic knowledge, attributing societal challenges like nuclear risks and to this divide and calling for integrative approaches to bridge it. In the 1960s, these concerns intensified with the rise of and , which exposed disciplinarity's limitations in handling interconnected systems. Ludwig von Bertalanffy's General System Theory (1968) critiqued the atomistic focus of traditional and physics, advocating general principles applicable across fields to counter fragmentation. Similarly, Philip H. Phenix's 1964 work on proposed organizing into integrative "realms of meaning" that transcend subject-specific boundaries, incorporating and aesthetic dimensions often neglected in specialized . By the late 1960s, social scientists like further illuminated disciplinarity's "ethnocentrism," where fields prioritized internal paradigms over comprehensive insight, resulting in knowledge gaps and inefficient . Campbell's 1969 analysis warned of "fish-scale" omniscience, where overlapping yet isolated disciplinary lenses distorted broader realities, particularly in policy-relevant areas like . These critiques, amplified by countercultural movements and events like the 1969 Apollo moon landing's demonstration of multidisciplinary feats, underscored the need for a surpassing mere —paving the way for transdisciplinarity's formal articulation around 1970.

Evolution Through Key Theorists and Milestones (1970s–Present)

The concept of transdisciplinarity gained prominence in the 1970s as a response to perceived limitations in disciplinary silos, with the term first articulated during an OECD-sponsored seminar on at the University of Nice in 1970. described it as a stage surpassing , aiming for an overarching unity of knowledge without fixed disciplinary boundaries, drawing on to integrate cognitive and evolutionary perspectives. Concurrently, Erich Jantsch advanced the idea in his 1972 book Inter- and Transdisciplinary University: Problems, Programs, Prospects, proposing transdisciplinarity as a hierarchical "hyperdiscipline" that unifies sciences, , and societal evolution through self-organizing principles inspired by general systems theory. Mathematician André Lichnerowicz complemented this by envisioning a formal axiomatic structure for transcending disciplines in educational reform. In the 1980s, Basarab Nicolescu, a theoretical , formalized transdisciplinarity as a extending "beyond disciplines," incorporating insights from to address fragmented knowledge production. He established the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CIRET) in 1984 and, in 1985, emphasized its role in reconciling science and spirituality through axioms including multiple levels of reality, the logic of the included middle (contradiction as unifying), and as irreducible interdependence. Nicolescu's framework contrasted with earlier views by prioritizing ontological pluralism over mere integration, influencing subsequent philosophical debates on knowledge unity. The 1990s marked institutional milestones, including the 1994 First World Congress on Transdisciplinarity at Convento da Arrábida, , where Nicolescu, artist Lima de Freitas, and philosopher drafted the Charter of Transdisciplinarity, affirming its opposition to and advocacy for holistic problem-solving amid global challenges like those highlighted at the 1992 UN . integrated complexity theory, viewing transdisciplinarity as essential for navigating uncertainty and human freedoms. Parallel developments included Michael Gibbons et al.'s 1994 analysis of "Mode 2" knowledge production, which emphasized context-driven, transdisciplinary collaboration over traditional "Mode 1" disciplinary research, though critics noted its overlap with without fully resolving definitional ambiguities. Nicolescu's 1996 Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity further codified these ideas, promoting applications in and . From the 2000s onward, a pragmatic "Zurich school" emerged, prioritizing stakeholder co-production for societal problems, as seen in the 2000 International on Transdisciplinarity in and the 2003 formation of td-net by the Swiss Academy of Sciences to foster transdisciplinary networks. Key figures like Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn and Christian Pohl contributed to the 2008 Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, outlining methods for mutual learning between and practice in contexts, with empirical case studies demonstrating enhanced problem-framing for "wicked" issues like climate adaptation. This approach diverged from Nicolescu's ontological focus by emphasizing iterative processes and evaluation metrics, such as stakeholder impact assessments, amid growing applications in fields like and . By the 2010s, transdisciplinarity influenced global initiatives, including programs and university centers, though evaluations highlight persistent challenges in measurability and institutional resistance, with over 20 dedicated PhD programs worldwide by 2020.

Methodological Approaches

Research Processes and Stakeholder Integration

Transdisciplinary processes emphasize iterative collaboration between academic disciplines and non-academic actors to co-produce addressing real-world problems. A standard framework delineates three overlapping phases: jointly framing problems, goals, and processes; jointly conducting ; and jointly exploring impacts in science and society. In the initial phase, diverse stakeholders—including practitioners, policymakers, and affected communities—contribute to problem identification through actor-context analyses, team assembly, and alignment of societal needs with objectives, ensuring problems are framed beyond academic silos. This co-design approach fosters mutual understanding and refines questions iteratively. During the research conduction phase, stakeholders actively integrate their with scientific methods, bridging disciplinary gaps via adjusted protocols for co-production, such as combining qualitative practitioner insights with quantitative modeling. Integration tools include boundary objects like prototypes or shared questionnaires that facilitate communication across domains, alongside organizational strategies such as interdisciplinary tandems or iterative workshops to link empirical and theoretical frameworks. Stakeholder involvement here targets substantive outcomes, enabling social learning and adaptive methods that account for contextual power dynamics and diverse quality criteria, often evaluated through multi-criteria assessments. The final phase shifts to solution development and , where stakeholders collaborate on testing interventions and reassessing strategies for broader dissemination, including reflexivity on unintended effects. Early stakeholder identification is critical, typically employing structured questionnaires for self-characterization and via interviews—starting with at least six initial contacts—to map diverse actors across sectors until saturation, ensuring comprehensive representation without over-reliance on elite voices. This process supports implementation rationales by embedding and reflexivity, though challenges like time constraints and cultural barriers necessitate tailored facilitation to maintain equity in contributions. Overall, these processes prioritize normative inclusion and causal linkages between research and societal application, distinguishing transdisciplinarity from unidirectional .

Analytical Tools and Evaluation Criteria

Analytical tools in transdisciplinary facilitate the integration of diverse types, including scientific, practical, and experiential inputs, to address complex societal problems. Common tools include boundary objects, which serve as shared representations (e.g., diagrams or models) that bridge disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives without requiring full consensus, enabling collaborative analysis of multifaceted issues like challenges. tools, such as systems archetypes and causal loop diagrams, help map interdependencies and feedback loops in complex systems, supporting the identification of leverage points for intervention. methods, numbering around 14 distinct approaches, synthesize judgments, values, and assumptions through structured exchanges, often employed in workshops to co-produce actionable insights. tools, like the Wheel of Multiple Perspectives, capture varied viewpoints on problem stakeholders, aiding in equitable participation and reducing power imbalances. Integration and Implementation Sciences (I2S) provides over 100 tools and approaches for knowledge synthesis and handling unknowns, encompassing conceptual clarification methods and participatory modeling to support policy and practice. These tools emphasize reflexivity, requiring ongoing assessment of assumptions and biases, and are often combined in toolkits tailored to transdisciplinary phases, from problem framing to . The td-net toolbox offers methods for co-producing , including joint project development and impact exploration techniques focused on real-world application. Evaluation criteria for transdisciplinary research adapt traditional scientific standards to account for its collaborative, context-specific nature, prioritizing societal alongside rigor. The Transdisciplinary Research Quality Assessment Framework, developed by Belcher et al., outlines four core principles: (alignment of problem, objectives, and approach with user needs), (methodological rigor yielding defensible outcomes), legitimacy (fair representation and process equity), and positioning for use (strategies enhancing uptake). This framework employs a for planning and a 3-point for ex-post evaluation, drawing on evidence from interviews, documents, and outputs to score satisfaction levels. Additional criteria frameworks, such as those from ISOE, categorize assessments into social (e.g., team composition and efficacy), problem-oriented (e.g., translation of real-world issues into goals), and integration dimensions (e.g., synthesis of types and transferability of results). These include 27 basic and 56 detailed questions for formative , conducted via regular reviews (at least biannually) to enable iterative improvements. Metrics often quantify aspects like stakeholder involvement depth, coproduction extent, and measurable societal impacts, though challenges persist in standardizing evaluations due to transdisciplinarity's emphasis on emergent, non-linear outcomes. Controversial claims of require multi-source validation, as self-reported impacts may overestimate effects without independent verification.

Applications and Empirical Evidence

Case Studies in Complex Problem-Solving

Transdisciplinarity facilitates the integration of diverse sources, including scientific expertise and practical stakeholder insights, to address wicked problems such as and climate impacts, where siloed disciplinary efforts prove insufficient. Case studies in this domain often emphasize iterative co-production processes, mutual learning, and real-world implementation, as seen in sustainability-focused projects originating from European research institutions. These examples highlight transdisciplinarity's emphasis on transcending academic boundaries to generate actionable solutions for complex systems influenced by social, ecological, and economic dynamics. A key illustration is the transdisciplinary on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region, conducted by researchers affiliated with ETH Zurich's environmental interface. Launched in the mid-2000s, the initiative targeted land-use conflicts stemming from agricultural pressures, , and in mountainous terrains. It employed a dual analytic-dynamic methodology: the analytic phase involved of interests and power structures using tools, while the dynamic phase featured collaborative workshops for visioning future scenarios. Stakeholders included farmers, policymakers, conservationists, and scientists, enabling the co-creation of balanced strategies that reconciled economic needs with ecological restoration, ultimately informing regional guidelines. In urban climate adaptation, transdisciplinarity has been applied to mitigate risks from intensifying torrential rains, as demonstrated in a European on water-sensitive . Conducted in the , this effort integrated hydrological modeling, urban engineering, social sciences, and input from municipal planners and residents to develop holistic flood management approaches. The process emphasized knowledge brokering to bridge gaps between predictive simulations and on-ground feasibility, yielding design recommendations for permeable surfaces, retention basins, and reforms that enhanced to extreme events linked to variability. Regional adaptation projects in northwestern provide another example, where transdisciplinary collaboration addressed vulnerabilities in , , and coastal areas amid rising sea levels and storm frequencies. Initiated around 2015 as part of broader funding for transitions, the study involved researchers, local governments, and industry representatives in joint assessments and formulation. Despite identified conflicts—such as differing timelines between academic rigor and urgent demands—the approach produced co-developed roadmaps, including enhanced monitoring systems and diversified land-use practices, which were adopted in municipal plans to reduce exposure to hazards. Applications extend to small island contexts, exemplified by a 2016 transdisciplinary in the targeting transitions in a small island developing state. Facing threats from tourism-driven development, limited resources, and climate-induced , the project united local actors with international experts in participatory labs to explore viable pathways for and economic diversification. Methods centered on stakeholder-driven scenario building and capacity enhancement, fostering systemic insights that supported dialogues on resilient development, as evaluated through post-project analyses of learning outcomes.

Measured Successes and Quantifiable Outcomes

In empirical evaluations of transdisciplinary research (TDR) processes, a 2025 study developed and tested a 25-item scale assessing knowledge integration across social-emotional and cognitive-communicative dimensions, applied to methods like scenario creation and development in the Austrian COwLEARNING project. The scale demonstrated high (Cronbach's 0.95 overall) and explained 42% of variance in outcomes, with scenario creation yielding mean scores of 75.8 for social-emotional factors (e.g., trust-building) and 74.4 for cognitive-communicative factors (e.g., mutual understanding), indicating substantial contributions to integrated knowledge production. A 2018 survey of 164 participants from TDR projects on sustainable found that 58% rated their projects as successful or very successful (mean overall success rating 3.6 on a 5-point scale), with mutual learning between and practitioners scoring highest at 4.58. Implementable solutions and equal cooperation were also highly valued (means 4.54 and 4.42, respectively), though practitioners reported lower success perceptions ( 3) compared to ( 4), highlighting context-specific variances in perceived . In sustainability-focused TDR case studies spanning 2003–2013 in Alpine regions, success manifested in project continuity, with initial engagements evolving into follow-up initiatives, such as product development and regional adaptation strategies informed by 1–3 practitioners per team. These efforts produced tangible outputs including reports, workshops, and media products with measurable reach, such as viral videos promoting resilience practices, alongside sustained stakeholder partnerships leading to branded regional initiatives.

Transdisciplinary Education and Training

Pedagogical Models and Implementation

Transdisciplinary pedagogical models prioritize the co-creation of knowledge that transcends disciplinary silos, often centering on real-world problems to foster integration of diverse expertise and stakeholder input. A facilitated collaborative method, for instance, enables educators to design learning outcomes that dismantle subject-based hierarchies and promote equitable expertise valuation, as applied in higher education contexts to address complex societal challenges. These models typically incorporate attributes such as handling complexity through multifaceted inquiry, liberating learners from rigid disciplinary constraints, ensuring inclusion of non-academic perspectives, transcending educational boundaries via practical application, and emphasizing to refine processes. In sustainability-focused teaching, such models integrate multiple viewpoints with internal reflexivity—where participants critically examine their own assumptions—and tied to specific contexts, enhancing applicability to environmental issues. Implementation strategies in universities involve embedding these models within curricula through thematic structures that convene faculty across fields, such as the Transdisciplinary Centers of Pedagogy Model (TCOPM), which develops thematically oriented centers to facilitate cross-disciplinary course planning and delivery starting from shared problem spaces. Transdisciplinary pedagogical templates (TPTs), introduced in 2016, provide reusable frameworks for learning designs that operate beyond single disciplines, allowing educators to adapt and share resources via digital repositories for scalable application in diverse programs. A U-shaped learning trajectory model, proposed in 2025, structures education around descending into disciplinary depth, synthesizing across fields, and ascending to novel integrative insights, cultivating capacities like and adaptive problem-solving in both students and instructors. Practical rollout often requires institutional support, including dedicated transdisciplinary faculties or modules within existing degrees, as outlined in educational toolkits that recommend phased integration from pilot courses to university-wide policies. For example, the University of Hong Kong's Common Core curriculum, institutionalized by 2024, sustains transdisciplinarity through deliberate assemblages of disciplinary content with societal relevance, enforced via policy mandates and faculty training to counter fragmentation. Challenges in implementation include balancing depth with breadth, necessitating ongoing evaluation metrics like stakeholder feedback and outcome tracking to verify efficacy beyond anecdotal reports.

Evidence of Educational Impacts and Shortcomings

Empirical evaluations of transdisciplinary educational programs demonstrate enhancements in student competencies, including transdisciplinary , ethical reasoning, and reflexivity, as observed in a global health initiative involving 21 students across five teams who engaged with real-world cases. Participants reported increased , of learning, and practical skills such as communication and expectation management, alongside strengthened university-community ties. Similarly, a transdisciplinary design study with 16 students from diverse disciplines found improved metacognitive abilities, , self-regulation, and confidence in assessments, with students valuing the integration of fields like marketing, , and for deeper intellectual inquiry and collaborative problem-solving. The U-shaped learning model posits that transdisciplinary education cultivates knowledge integration across disciplines and epistemologies, alongside actionable knowledge for societal challenges, fostering intra-personal competencies like and open-mindedness, as well as and through stakeholder collaboration. These approaches also promote transferable skills for , such as addressing multifaceted real-world problems, with students exhibiting greater engagement and preparedness compared to siloed disciplinary training. Despite these benefits, transdisciplinary encounters significant shortcomings, including implementation complexity that demands role and mindset shifts from both students and educators, often leading to initial discomfort without adequate . Inconsistent , such as dominant or disengaged community partners, undermines collaboration, while insufficient preparation in areas like and power dynamics limits depth. Complexity can impede comprehensive knowledge development, time constraints restrict inquiry depth, and variable student motivation affects outcomes. Broader challenges include the absence of standardized pedagogical principles, difficulties in defining and balancing disciplinary inputs, and sparse on , potentially resulting in superficial integration rather than rigorous synthesis.

Domain-Specific Influences

Natural and Engineering Sciences

Transdisciplinarity in the sciences extends beyond disciplinary silos to integrate empirical observations from fields such as , physics, and earth sciences with practical problem-solving for complex environmental systems. This approach addresses "wicked problems" like and climate impacts, where monodisciplinary methods often fail due to incomplete causal modeling of interconnected variables. For example, transdisciplinary frameworks in emphasize co-production of knowledge, merging quantitative data on dynamics with qualitative stakeholder inputs to inform strategies. Such methods have been applied in , where they facilitate the use of co-concepts—shared understandings developed iteratively—to bridge scientific modeling with local practices, as seen in studies on and resource . In environmental research, transdisciplinary approaches prove particularly useful when problems require normative alongside empirical , such as assessing sustainable futures through participatory scenario-building that combines hydrological with social preferences. from Arctic research highlights how transdisciplinarity enhances foresight by integrating geophysical with indigenous knowledge, though outcomes depend on rigorous validation to avoid diluting scientific with unsubstantiated narratives. Critics note that while these methods generate actionable insights—evidenced by improved policy uptake in cases like European Union-funded projects—their success hinges on maintaining , as overemphasis on inclusivity can introduce subjective biases not grounded in replicable experiments. In engineering sciences, transdisciplinarity drives innovation in by embedding technical rigor within broader socio-economic contexts, particularly for and challenges. Engineering projects increasingly adopt transdisciplinary processes to handle multifaceted risks, such as in sustainable urban development, where computational modeling integrates material science with regulatory and ethical constraints. A in demonstrated that transdisciplinary reduced implementation delays by 20-30% through iterative feedback loops involving technical experts and end-users, quantifying benefits via metrics like cycle time and rates. Educational programs, such as those at , incorporate transdisciplinary curricula to cultivate skills in and , with pre-post assessments showing statistically significant gains in students' ability to address real-world engineering dilemmas holistically. However, practical application reveals limitations, including resource intensity and the challenge of reconciling engineering's emphasis on quantifiable outcomes with less precise inputs from non-technical domains, as evidenced in undergraduate studies where transdisciplinary teams underperformed in precision tasks without structured protocols.

Social Sciences, Policy, and Humanities

Transdisciplinarity in the social sciences prioritizes co-production of through sustained collaboration between academics and societal stakeholders, particularly for addressing interconnected issues like urban health and . A foundational example is the application in , where Lang et al. (2012) delineated a three-phase process—problem framing with diverse , joint of solutions, and application of outcomes—drawing on empirical cases to highlight mutual learning as key to overcoming disciplinary and generating target for real-world implementation. This approach has informed projects such as transdisciplinary visioning for agricultural futures, where social scientists integrated farmer inputs with economic modeling to build and adaptive strategies amid uncertainty. Challenges persist, however, including asymmetrical power dynamics that marginalize non-expert voices and methodological tensions between qualitative depth and quantifiable rigor, often resulting in uneven integration. In policy domains, transdisciplinarity aids the navigation of "wicked" problems by embedding stakeholder across policy cycles, from to , as seen in responses to global threats like pandemics and unsustainability. McGregor (2023) contrasts Nicolescuian transdisciplinarity, which unifies multiple levels of beyond disciplinary fragmentation, with the Zurich approach's emphasis on iterative stakeholder forums, arguing both enhance policy resilience by countering compartmentalized decision-making in institutions. For instance, policymaking increasingly deploys transdisciplinary expert groups for synthesis on transitions, though political contestation over legitimacy can undermine consensus. Empirical assessments reveal that while such methods foster innovative recommendations, they demand substantial resources and face barriers in translating outputs into binding regulations, with success rates varying by institutional openness to non-academic inputs. Humanities contributions to transdisciplinarity emphasize normative, interpretive frameworks that enrich problem-solving with cultural and ethical dimensions, transcending academic boundaries to include practitioner narratives in knowledge creation. Defined as a collaborative praxis involving non-academic actors, it manifests in "transhumanities" initiatives that probe limits through integrated lenses on heritage and . The EU-funded SHAPE-ID (2018–2021) exemplified this by developing toolkits to bolster , , and social sciences integration in transdisciplinary efforts with STEM disciplines, analyzing 20+ case studies to recommend mutual learning protocols and metrics for societal challenges like . Yet, often receive limited emphasis in transdisciplinary agendas, overshadowed by positivist metrics, prompting critiques of insufficient pluralism and calls for explicit valuation of subjective insights to avoid reductive outcomes. Across these fields, transdisciplinarity's value lies in causal linkages between diverse epistemologies and actionable change, though underscores persistent hurdles in equitable participation and long-term impact measurement.

Criticisms and Limitations

Theoretical Critiques of Rigor and Subjectivity

Critics argue that transdisciplinarity undermines methodological rigor by prioritizing integrative synthesis over the specialized depth required for verifiable production, often resulting in blurred boundaries that dilute disciplinary standards. This approach risks oversimplification of complex phenomena, as the push to transcend can lead to superficial treatments lacking the precision of monodisciplinary scrutiny. Without a unified theoretical framework, transdisciplinary outputs become difficult to evaluate against established criteria of and , echoing broader concerns in academic about the absence of consensus on what constitutes rigorous in such contexts. The vagueness inherent in transdisciplinarity's definitions exacerbates these rigor deficits, as ambiguous invites inconsistent application and resists standardized validation protocols. For instance, while proponents advocate for flexible criteria like and reflexivity, detractors contend that compliance-based rigor—emphasizing transparent and systematic design—is sidelined in favor of interpretive judgments that prioritize practical utility over empirical robustness. This shift is seen as particularly problematic in fields demanding high stakes, such as policy-relevant , where methodological weaknesses can propagate untested assumptions under the guise of holistic integration. Subjectivity emerges as a core theoretical , amplified by the inclusion of non-academic stakeholders whose experiential inputs challenge the objectivity of scientific processes. In transdisciplinary frameworks, co-production with practitioners introduces personal biases and contextual dependencies, potentially skewing results toward consensus-driven narratives rather than evidence-based conclusions. Reflexivity, often hailed as a strength for , is critiqued for embedding researcher subjectivity into the generation pipeline, fostering interpretive variability that undermines inter-subjective agreement and replicability. Such dynamics, while enabling broader societal engagement, are argued to erode the causal clarity essential for causal realism in , as subjective integrations lack the detachment needed to isolate variables effectively.

Practical Failures, Resource Demands, and Implementation Barriers

Transdisciplinary research projects frequently encounter substantial resource demands, including prolonged timelines for , trust-building, and iterative collaboration across phases such as problem framing, knowledge co-production, and evaluation. These demands necessitate high investments in social and for managing diverse perspectives, often exceeding those of disciplinary or even interdisciplinary efforts due to the intensity of mutual learning processes. Funding structures, which prioritize discipline-specific proposals and short-term outputs, exacerbate these challenges by under-supporting the extended and iterative methods required for transdisciplinary integration. Implementation barriers arise from institutional and cultural resistance within academia, where metrics like and traditional favor siloed expertise over boundary-crossing work, leading to biases against transdisciplinary outputs. Communication hurdles, such as disciplinary differences and the absence of formalized transdisciplinary specialization, further impede progress, requiring additional tools like glossaries and trained facilitators that strain limited resources. These structural misalignments often result in projects stalling during the transition from research to real-world application, as tensions between maintaining scientific rigor and achieving practical relevance prove difficult to resolve without pragmatic compromises. Practical failures in transdisciplinary initiatives are evident in difficulties scaling case-specific results to broader contexts, limiting generalizability and real-world impact despite problem-solving aims. Some empirical reviews indicate lower academic performance metrics, such as publication rates, in transdisciplinary compared to non-transdisciplinary ones, attributed to the and time intensity diverting effort from traditional outputs. Documented cases highlight "disquiet" among participants due to excessive demands overwhelming team capacities, contributing to incomplete integrations or abandonment when implementation gaps—such as unaddressed stakeholder conflicts—emerge.

Ongoing Debates and Future Directions

Current Controversies on Transformative Claims

Transdisciplinarity proponents assert that integrating disciplinary with stakeholder perspectives enables transformative societal outcomes, particularly for "wicked problems" like and , by generating actionable beyond siloed . However, a central revolves around the empirical paucity of linking transdisciplinary processes to verifiable systemic transformations, with many claims resting on theoretical mechanisms rather than longitudinal on societal impact. For instance, analyses of 31 transdisciplinary projects identified potential impact pathways—such as fostering systems for , social learning for collective action, and competences for leadership—but concluded that combinations of strategies show promise only conditionally, without broad proof of transformative efficacy. Critics highlight implementation failures that undermine transformative aspirations, often attributing them to inadequate , deficits, and mismatched expectations among researchers and stakeholders. In a 2006–2008 of the INCLUDE project on infrastructures, transdisciplinary faltered due to absent preparatory phases, unstructured stakeholder learning, and command-style management, resulting in premature program termination by funders for insufficient scientific quality and integration. Such examples illustrate broader practical barriers, including institutional in universities, reliance on traditional bibliometric evaluations that undervalue non-academic outputs, and time-intensive co-design clashing with short cycles, which collectively limit scalability and real-world application. Evaluation challenges exacerbate skepticism, as standardized metrics for transdisciplinary effectiveness remain underdeveloped, with empirical studies scarce and often constrained by small samples or overlapping constructs like trust and sharing. A scale assessing integration in a five-year found scenario-based methods outperforming games in social-emotional and cognitive factors (means of 75.8 vs. 69.3), yet emphasized the need for further validation amid diverse objectives and actors, underscoring gaps in proving societal . Moreover, tensions between epistemic rigor and roles risk eroding scientific , as stakeholder involvement can prioritize consensus over falsifiable claims, fueling debates on whether incentives inflate promises without commensurate . These issues prompt calls for hybrid models blending transdisciplinarity with disciplinary anchors to mitigate subjectivity, though proponents counter that incremental evidence from case-based learning suffices for adaptive progress.

Prospects for Rigorous Advancement and Integration

Recent developments in transdisciplinary emphasize the creation of structured frameworks to enhance methodological rigor and facilitate integration across disciplines and stakeholder groups. For instance, a systematic identifies potentials in applying three-phase models—encompassing problem framing, analysis, and mutual learning—to address complex challenges, thereby promoting systematic unity of scientific and practical . Similarly, in contexts, a proposed five-stage process integrates interactive with Design Research Methodology (DRM), involving current state mapping, iterative development, and goal assessment to ensure thorough problem comprehension and blend academic and industrial perspectives through collaborative workshops. These approaches aim to mitigate subjectivity by enforcing iterative validation and documentation, potentially advancing transdisciplinarity beyond ad hoc applications. Evaluation tools are emerging to quantify integration, supporting empirical assessment of transdisciplinary . A 2025 study introduces a novel scale, developed and empirically tested, to measure how transdisciplinary methods contribute to integrating diverse inputs, with implications for refining processes based on quantifiable outcomes like convergence of and actionable insights. Such metrics address prior shortcomings in rigor by enabling comparison against benchmarks, fostering evidence-based refinements rather than reliance on anecdotal success. In , transdisciplinary models incorporate social learning phases to synthesize practitioner and scholarly , as demonstrated in the ' Data in Government Lab initiative since 2019, which yielded tools for data practices and highlighted needs for standardized facilitation to overcome barriers like power imbalances. Prospects for broader integration hinge on institutional capacity-building, including training in problem-solving and to embed transdisciplinarity in organizational routines. While resource-intensive, these advancements could yield scalable applications for "wicked" problems, such as climate adaptation, by prioritizing causal linkages between integrated knowledge and real-world impacts over disciplinary . Ongoing research calls for comparative studies of transdisciplinary versus alternative methods to validate transformative claims empirically, potentially solidifying its role in and domains.

References

  1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00598-5
  2. https://www.uu.nl/en/research/transdisciplinary-field-guide/get-started/what-is-transdisciplinary-research
  3. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=kb_pubs
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17330451/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/transdisciplinarity
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8049543/
  7. https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/50/2/219/6809965
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332221007284
  9. https://inters.org/Freitas-Morin-Nicolescu-Transdisciplinarity
  10. https://metanexus.net/transdisciplinarity-methodological-framework-going-beyond-science-religion-debate/
  11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02604027.2014.934631
  12. http://www.basarab-nicolescu.ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/Docs_Notice/TJESNo_1_12_2010.pdf
  13. https://www.uu.nl/en/education/educational-development-training/knowledge-dossiers/interdisciplinary-education-and-cel/multi-inter-and-transdisciplinarity-what-is-what
  14. https://domteamscience.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Multidisciplinarity-Interdisciplinarity-and-Transdisciplinarity-in-Health-Research-Services-Education-and-Policy-1.-Definitions-Objectives-and-Evidence-of-Effectiveness.pdf
  15. https://www.tercercongresomundialtransdisciplinariedad.mx/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Transdisciplinarity-past-present-and-future.pdf
  16. https://www.oekom.de/_files_media/zeitschriften/artikel/GAIA_2023_04_391.pdf
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282285072_Transdisciplinarity_A_Review_of_Its_Origins_Development_and_Current_Issues
  18. https://en.transdisciplinarity.ch/transdisciplinarity/how-is-tdr-done/research-process
  19. https://i2insights.org/2017/05/09/transdisciplinary-integration-methods/
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091931420X
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6106094/
  22. https://thesystemsthinker.com/category/how-to-guides
  23. https://press.anu.edu.au/?p=60381
  24. https://www.oekom.de/_uploads_media/files/gaia_flyer_toolkits_032911.pdf
  25. http://i2s.anu.edu.au/resources
  26. https://naturalsciences.ch/co-producing-knowledge-explained/methods/td-net_toolbox
  27. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv025
  28. https://researcheffectiveness.ca/
  29. https://www.isoe.de/uploads/downloads/Publikationen/Reihen/ISOE-Studientexte/st-13-isoe-2005-en.pdf
  30. https://tdlab.usys.ethz.ch/teaching/tdcs.html
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S146290112200020X
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225108513_Analytic_and_Dynamic_Approach_to_Collaboration_A_Transdisciplinary_Case_Study_on_Sustainable_Landscape_Development_in_a_Swiss_Prealpine_Region
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285797611_Knowledge_Integration_in_Transdisciplinary_Sustainability_Research_A_Case_Study_on_Adaptation_to_Increasing_Torrential_Rains_in_Urban_Areas
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800917318244
  35. http://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.11
  36. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-05634-w
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6086303/
  38. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/71
  39. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1361727.pdf
  40. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500693.2023.2281007
  41. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-023-01407-z
  42. https://www.mdpi.com/2813-4346/4/2/26
  43. https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/jime.402
  44. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04478-8
  45. https://enhanceuniversity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/D4.14_Toolkit-on-Transdisciplinary-Education-and-Science.pdf
  46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-024-01250-w
  47. https://citl.news.niu.edu/2020/11/17/transdisciplinary-interdisciplinary/
  48. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2025.2463515
  49. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02734753241288182
  50. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Okq3WmwAAAAJ&hl=en
  51. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mvahENAAAAAJ&hl=en
  52. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=k7Oc14sAAAAJ&hl=en
  53. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/future-of-arctic-research/
  54. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.840569/full
  55. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/ATDE230620
  56. https://catalog.purdue.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=8&poid=10152
  57. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20497
  58. https://www.ijee.ie/1atestissues/Vol36-6/22_ijee4002.pdf
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257703763_Lang_DJ_Wiek_A_Bergmann_M_Stauffacher_M_Martens_P_Moll_P_Swilling_M_Thomas_CJ_Transdisciplinary_research_in_sustainability_science_Practice_principles_and_challenges_Sustainability_Science
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-anyone-point-me-to-a-case-study-that-has-been-successful-using-interdisciplinary-transdisciplinary-approaches-in-conservation
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001824
  62. https://consultmcgregor.com/images/Documents/td_and_public_policy_as_published_2023.pdf
  63. https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/the-case-for-transdisciplinarity
  64. https://www.shapeid.eu/
  65. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2023.2245769
  66. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/06/addressing-societal-challenges-using-transdisciplinary-research_41211835/0ca0ca45-en.pdf
  67. https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/term/transdisciplinary-worldview/
  68. https://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol23/ISJv23p047-076Gill6181.pdf
  69. https://www.transcript-verlag.de/shopMedia/openaccess/pdf/oa9783839463475.pdf
  70. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-025-01631-9
  71. https://www.nss-journal.org/articles/nss/pdf/2008/02/nss8204.pdf
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666049022000585
  73. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780367207045/interdisciplinary-transdisciplinary-failures-dena-fam-michael-rourke
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901119303867
  75. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6995
  76. https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2023-04-26Futureoftransdisciplinaryresearch.pdf
  77. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10920617251368348
  78. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40881816/
  79. https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/article/8/2/106/8116861
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.