Search by key issues
This section comprises cross-cutting challenges you may encounter in knowledge co-production processes.
Note: Listed methods offer first options and are not meant to be exclusive. We will add more methods over time. When you click on the name of a method, you get redirected to either a method profile of the td-net toolbox or a brief factsheet (that links our web portal with method descriptions in external resource compilations).
Identify actors, roles and expectations
We want to work together with various experts from science and practice and are unsure about who to involve and why.
Our collaboration doesn’t work as anticipated. We need to find out whether the right people are on board.
We would like to clarify the power constellations around the problem situation that are relevant for the project: Who has which and how much influence? Who has no voice? How can this be considered in the project?
We would like to get a better picture of how the problem is perceived and discussed. We also want to know by whom and in which contexts the problem is discussed.
We would like to make sure that we have involved the people that are needed to act on the problem.
The rough goals of our project are set. We need to clarify who participates, for what reason and in which role. We want to do this, either because we haven't done so yet or because we realise that roles are unclear or inadequate.
We have identified the relevant actors for our project. We need to define a) the role and tasks of our transdisciplinary group, b) rules of decision making and confidentiality, and c) intellectual property rights agreements.
In order to develop a collaborative project, we would like to clarify what each of the involved partners (or subprojects) could contribute to the overall project and vice versa. Furthermore, it could be useful to know whether important topics are missing.
We have identified the relevant actors for our project. We need to define who to involve in which stage of the process, in which form and to what extent.
Participants' expectations regarding the project outcomes are unclear or differ. We need to clarify these expectations in order to agree on realistic project goals.
Embrace differences, tensions and conflicts in a transdisciplinary group
We have the impression that core actors of the project might be at cross-purposes. We want them to become aware of each other’s viewpoint, expertise and know-how in order to use the full potential for the benefit of the project.
We want to enhance mutual understanding of researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds through comparing conventions that are fundamental to their academic field (e.g. norms on knowledge generation, evidence, assumptions, values).
Our co-production process is stuck because different experts disagree on strategies for solving a problem or answers to a key question. We would like to collect and weigh the underlying arguments and rationales.
Participants' expectations regarding the project’s outcomes are unclear or differ. We need to clarify these expectations in order to agree on realistic project goals.
We would like to learn what the problem is, for whom it is a problem and how strongly we or other people agree on its framing. We want the various perspectives to become explicit.
As laypersons in a certain field, we would like to examine priorities, framings and models set by experts. We would like to uncover respective assumptions (e.g. system boundaries that were set when creating a model; aspects that are stressed or neglected in describing an issue).
Participants of the project disagree about the facts and their meaning.
°The method is best suited to make individual perspectives explicit.
+This method ist mainly suitable for acquiring system knowledge (additional methods are required for transformation knowledge).
^Focusing on the first steps of the method
" The method is mainly suitable to collect underlying arguments/ rationales, to weigh them, additional methods are required.
‘‘ The method fosters conversations about strategies to generate answers to a problem, but not about the content of the answers per se.
In our collaborative project there is a key person who tends to dominate plenary discussions. We would like to have an exchange that allows everyone to share his/her thoughts.
We would like to clarify the power constellations in the transdisciplinary group that are relevant for the project: Who has which and how much influence? Who has no voice? How can this be considered in the project?
We want to address differing positions regarding individual costs, benefits and risks, and mitigation strategies.
Our collaboration doesn’t work as anticipated. We think we need to do something to resolve interpersonal tensions.
Even though this is a common challenge in td research, the editorial board does not consider it (and respective approaches to size it) to be specific to td research. Interpersonal tensions may be more strongly related to team structures, team theories and team collaboration styles in general, than to tensions specifically caused by transdisciplinarity. The editorial board refrains from recommending a specific tool. You may find some guidance under “Applying td methods thoughtfully”, e.g. in the section on teambuilding.
We realise people are less and less motivated in participating actively in the knowledge co-production process. We assume this might be related with weak ownership and missing trust.
Even though this is a common challenge in td research, the editorial board does not consider it (and respective approaches to size it) to be specific to td research. Questions of ownership and missing trust may be more strongly related to process design and management of information flow in general, than to tensions specifically caused by transdisciplinarity. The editorial board refrains from recommending a specific tool. You may find some guidance under ““Applying td methods thoughtfully”, e.g. in the section on teambuilding.
We have the feeling the group is losing momentum and falling apart. We would like to review our collaboration through identifying which events the group members consider as key for the joint process. With this, we hope to enhance the team spirit.
Strive for societal relevance
We have the feeling our research project is too far away from practice, i.e. would benefit from a dialogue with repesentatives from practice. To resolve this, we would like to bring together a group of actors to assist the transdisciplinary process.
We want to come up with concrete transformation options developed in collaboration with actors and stakeholders relevant to dealing with a specific problem situation. The goal is clear, but we miss an overall picture of the situation, we don’t know where to set in.
We realise we have to better understand the societal problem our research deals with, i.e. the problem’s actual dynamics, how it is perceived or discussed and by whom and in which context.
+This method is mainly suitable for generating an overview of system knowledge (additional methods are required for transformation knowledge).
We are not sure whether our research questions adequately respond to the societal knowledge demand we identified. We think it could be helpful to ask our research question in different ways.
As laypersons in a certain field, we would like to examine priorities, framings and models set by experts. We would like to uncover respective assumptions (e.g. system boundaries that were set when creating a model; aspects that are stressed or neglected in describing an issue).
Navigating through normative dimensions
Td-net would argue that any kind of science cannot be fully understood if detached from values and norms. With the specific focus on societal goals in certain td research1, normative dimensions become more pronounced. Td research – especially that which targets at tackling societal challenges – involves normative principles, orientations and assumptions. This is because the “problem-solution-construct”2 always comes with particular ideas of improvement and change. Such ideas of improvement are, for instance, embedded in more ‘sustainable’, ‘healthy’ or ‘just’ solutions. Normative dimensions become evident when stakeholders or researchers mention “indispensable” criteria for solutions, or in discussions on what exactly more sustainable, healthy or just outcomes of td research for society would be. Less visible, normative dimensions also enter td research through decisions taken on what to consider and what not to, e.g. when researchers decide upon system boundaries of their research. Normative dimensions can also be found in the reasoning why a certain research question is considered to be ‘worthy of study’ and which societal goals researchers aim to support.
Several of the methods in the td-net toolbox can be used to uncover, reflect, discuss and navigate normative dimensions that are explicitly guiding or implicitly underlying td research. We encourage you to creatively use and adapt these methods (briefly described below) to become aware of normative dimensions in your research and to work with these in an explicit and reflective manner.
1For plurality of definitions of transdiciplinary research (with/without focus on societal goals), visit: https://go.transdisciplinarity.ch/what-is-td
2Problem-solution construct: The way experts from science and practice describe the problem the transdisciplinary research should examine and provide solutions to.
The Three types of knowledge tool differentiates between systems knowledge, transformation knowledge and target knowledge. Target knowledge is knowledge about “what ought to be”, i.e. the idea of improvement. When you focus on this knowledge type in a project you typically have to become more specific about an (implicitly) assumed, general idea of improvement. E.g. What is the vision of health a specific remedy will contribute to? In what sense will a specific measure lead to more justice? Generation of target knowledge is often interlinked with the quest for transformation knowledge, that is, knowledge about how to move from the current state to “what ought to be”. E.g. How is a specific measure to be implemented (transformation) so that it really makes a situation more sustainable (target)? Thus, this tool helps to make normative dimensions of research explicit.
In the Soft systems methodology, there is an explicit step to address normative questions that come with a proposed transformation of a situation. Once an idea of transformation (root definition) is developed, the CATWOE questions can be used to elaborate and reflect on it. In particular the questions about winners and losers (C), the underlying ‘Weltanschauung’ (W, wordview) and the external constraints which are taken as given (E) concern normative dimensions.
The Toolbox dialogue approach provides questions for reflection to uncover implicit assumptions on ‘what good research is’. Some of the questions address normative dimensions explicitly. E.g. they ask how one can conciliate between values (of researchers and stakeholders) and the generation of valid results. Or they put the role for advocacy in research up for discussion. Other questions approach normative dimensions less directly, such as “What kinds of data constitute scientific evidence?”.
The Emancipatory boundary critique helps to detect boundaries in research that have been set by researchers, and questions “Should it be like that?”. The tool consists of questions covering the aspects of motivation, power, knowledge and legitimization. Each question can be asked in the format of an “is-question” and in the format of an “ought-to-be-question”. The set of “is-questions” helps to identify the boundaries set by the experts, e.g., by asking “What kind of expertise is consulted? That is, what counts as relevant knowledge?” .The set of “ought-to-be” questions directly asks for the normative dimension, they explore “Should it be like that?” E.g. “What kind of expertise ought to be consulted? That is, what ought to count as relevant knowledge?”.
Integrate different fields of expertise
We would like to learn what the problem is, for whom it is a problem and how strongly individual group members agree on its framing. We want the various perspectives to become explicit.
We have a question to which there is no study, but there are some experts that, as a collective, have the knowledge and can provide relevant arguments to answer the question.
Our co-production process is stuck because different experts disagree on strategies for solving a problem or answers to a key question. We would like to collect and weigh the underlying arguments and rationales.
We would like to collect and interrelate our group’s knowledge on a certain topic. We would like to use a means of expression that removes potential hierarchies between participants.
We want to enhance mutual understanding of researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds through comparing scientific conventions that are fundamental to their academic field (e.g. norms on knowledge generation, evidence, assumptions, values).
°The method is best suited to make individual perspectives explicit.
+This method ist mainly suitable for acquiring system knowledge (additional methods are required for transformation knowledge).
" method is mainly suitable to collect underlying arguments/ rationales, to weigh them, additional methods are required
We want to develop a set of possible future development scenarios with respect to a societal issue. For coherence, we would like to describe the different scenarios with the same variables.
Our collaboration doesn’t work as anticipated. We think we need to do something about missing links between subprojects.
We would like to discuss an issue more in-depth from the perspective of different fields in order to increase (mutual) understanding.
We want to enhance mutual understanding of researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds through comparing scientific conventions that are fundamental to their academic field (e.g. norms on knowledge generation, evidence, assumptions, values).
* To elaborate on different perspectives, it is recommended that you first draw rich pictures individually/in homogenous groups and then in heterogenous groups.
Our collaboration doesn’t work as anticipated. We think we need to do something about missing links between subprojects.
Our collaboration doesn’t work as anticipated. We think we need to clarify whether some subprojects deal with overlapping questions or issues.
We want to initiate a first exchange among (sub-) projects so that they start swapping ideas.
We want to enhance mutual understanding of researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds through comparing scientific conventions that are fundamental to their academic field (e.g. norms on knowledge generation, evidence, assumptions, values).
Review process and impacts
We need to clarify and/or review what impact our project realistically can have and how to assess it.
Our envisaged project outcomes are clear. However, we are not sure about intended and unintended effects (e.g. risks) the project had. Therefore, we would like to identify them from the perspective of the various involved actors.
We want to uncover desired changes and respective impact pathways participants implicitly have in mind.
We want to learn how participants have experienced the knowledge co-production process so far: What were important steps, events, influences, (team) dynamics etc. from their point of view?
Given that our collaboration is somehow stuck, we would like to develop more understanding for each other through exchanging what so far has been particularly important and for whom in the process.
As laypersons in a certain field, we would like to examine priorities, framings and models set in the project. We would like to uncover respective assumptions (e.g. system boundaries that were set when creating a model; aspects that are stressed or neglected in describing an issue).
We are not sure whether our research questions adequately respond to the societal knowledge demand we identified. We think it could be helpful to ask our research question in different ways.
td-net – Network for Transdisciplinarity Research