Why Transdisciplinarity? Re-Thinking Science and Research Paradigms
Aim of this session
The aim of this rather theoretical session is twofold. The first goal is to give an overview over the history of science, the relationship between scientific and practical knowledge as well as research paradigms to show that the developments of scientific disciplines and scientific knowledge as well as research paradigms are grounded in historical traditions and embedded in power structures. This is important with regard to transdisciplinarity because this new framework for knowledge production challenges some of the historic developments, like the differentiation between scientific knowledge and lay knowledge and the hierarchy between the two. Furthermore, instead of arguing over the laws of nature and reality as positivists and constructivists do, pragmatism is presented as a paradigm which can provide a framework for transdisciplinarity since it is oriented towards finding approaches, concepts and methods which best fit the anticipated outcomes. The second goal of this presentation is embedded in the assumption that for doing transdisciplinary research scientists have to be aware about the paradigms and scientific discourses that frame their own work and ways of thinking. This is import, since doing transdisciplinarity entails openness and flexibility of different methods and theories. Furthermore, it requires flexibility and respect and consideration of different perspectives and knowledge.
Links to transdisciplinary research and teaching
The presentation is based on different texts and readings. The primarily aim is to provide a short summary of very complex topics, namely the history of science, knowledge and research paradigms. The aim is to classify and explain the current science system and to lay the foundation for understanding the background of our scientific endeavors. This is important because individual choices of projects and theoretical approaches and perceptions of the phenomena that will be studied are entangled in and influenced by the past and related to different research paradigms. To be aware of where we actually ‘come’ from is a precondition for listening, respecting and considering the different positions, scientific approaches and methods, and for understanding the different academic and non-academic actors and how their knowledge is involved in transdisciplinary projects. The presentation does not intend, however, to ‘condemn’ certain research paradigms or the dominant understanding of science, but intends to open the space for reflections and discussions of the possibilities and shortcomings with regard to the relation between science and society and transdisciplinarity.
Summary of main points
To give an introduction about the history of science and the differentiations and fragmentations which accompany this process.
To enable participants to realize that scientific work is embedded in and part of the history of science.
To show that transdisciplinarity is a new framework for knowledge production that challenges some understanding of science and the dominant research paradigm.
To give an idea how science and public is actually are related (Mode 2) and how transdisciplinarity is involved in this relationship.
Use of reading material
The first article is by Guba, Egon and Yvonne Lincoln (1994): Competing paradigms in qualitative research, in: Denzin & Lincoln: Handbook of qualitative research, London: Sage. The article gives a general overview over research paradigms.
The second article is by Helga Nowotny (2006): The Potential of Transdisciplinarity (http://www.helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdf). This article introduces a new form of knowledge production (named Mode 2) that is increasingly needed since socially robust and societally relevant knowledge is needed. What this implies, and why transdisciplinarity is relevant in this new framework, is further discussed in the article. The article refers to a European discussion but, - as proposed in the second exercise - it would be interesting to see whether this discussion is perceived as relevant in non-European contexts as well. The article is meant to make the participants to rethink the role of science and the relation between science and society and how it can be differently framed.
Additional comments to the presentation
The PowerPoint is definitely challenging, since, as mentioned already, the issues dealt with are very complex. There are two readings, which should be made mandatory. If the second article by Nowotny is not read beforehand, the second exercise does not make sense. Therefore, it should be communicated that all the participants take some time to at least read it (therefore a shorter version was chosen).
Concluding remarks
On the last slide, additional literature is mentioned which discusses the different topics that are referred to in the presentation.
Reflections
The PowerPoint is very challenging, especially if presented to an audience that might not be familiar with the history of science or the discussions about the relation between science and the public with respect to different kinds of knowledge. Thus, even though the Power Point is short, it is important to plan enough time for the presentation to last at least 1,5 hours.
Furthermore, this video might be helpful as it gives a good overview over the history of science (slide 3):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvtCLceNf30
Intro to History of Science: Crash Course History of Science #1
The video is 12 min; this should be considered when planning the session!
Additionally two exercises are included:
Exercise 1
During the first exercise (slide 11), participants should discuss in small groups (3-5) the following question:
If we understand transdisciplinary research as collaborative spaces between science and civil actors, in which different values, perspectives, and experiences are integrated, then we must ask how suitable positivist and constructivist research paradigm are for transdisciplinarity? And what are the possibilities and challenges for incorporating them?
The groups should then present the main points they discussed with regard to the two paradigms.
The trainer could refer to the following points after the presentations:
Positivism is problematic for transdisciplinary research, because....
Experience (the empirical) is seen as untouched by different contextual and cultural values
It stresses the absolute objectivity of science -> social influences are seen as polluting an alleged scientific rationality
There is a strong focus on the individual -> the removed expert
Its methods (merely quantitative) reduce reality to its measurability
It views science as transcendent and value free
Constructivism is more useful, because....
Different perspectives, contexts, and cultures are seen as being inextricably linked with experience (Representations are always interpretations)
Different forms of sense-making and differing valid ways to interpret reality are acknowledged
There is a focus on social collectives and processes of negotiation -> participation
Its methods acknowledge different understandings, perspectives and reality’s conceptuality and complexity
It views science as culture
The aim of this exercise is to motivate the participants to reflect on the aims of transdisciplinarity and whether and how this can be combined with existing paradigms. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see how the participants can relate their own work to the paradigms.
Exercise 2
The second exercise (slide 16) is based on the text by Helga Nowotny ‘The potential of Transdisciplinarity’. Either in small groups, or depending on the time left also in the big group, the following questions should be discussed:
Why do we need a new form of knowledge production?
What is the benefit for flows of reverse communication between science and society?
Reference is a European discussion: Are the arguments put forward in the text relevant for your context? (if not much time is left only this question could be discussed!)
The aim of this exercise is to strengthen the understanding that transdisciplinarity is also embedded or part of discussions and debates on science production in general and the ‘new’ claim for more socially relevant knowledge, discussed under the term Mode 2. Of special interest in the context of the manual and the project in general is whether this ‘European’ discussion is also relevant or seen as relevant in other contexts.
There should also be enough time for a Question & Answer round!!!!