Search by phases
This section comprises challenges you may encounter in specific stages of knowledge co-production. It is not necessary to go through all stages or to address them in the current order.
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).
Jointly envisage a transdisciplinary project
In a loose group of interested experts from science and practice and based on a shared concern, we would like to agree on a concrete societal problem situation to work on.
We would like to clarify what various interested experts from science and practice could contribute to and benefit from a joint project. Furthermore, it could be useful to know whether important topics are missing.
We have identified the relevant actors for our project. We would like to bring them together to put on the table desired goals, expectations and interests; and to develop pathways to impact and a strategy for the project as well as consider possible risks.
We want to discuss our rough project idea with various experts from science and practice and are unsure about who to involve.
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.
We would like to jointly develop a procedure for our knowledge co-production process and don't know how to do that.
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.
We have identified relevant actors for our project. We need to define who to involve in which stage of the process, in which form and how intense.
Jointly frame goals, problems and research
We would like to discuss a problem situation more in-depth from the perspective of different fields from science and practice.
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.
We realise we have to better understand the societal problem our research deals with, i.e. the problem’s actual dynamics, how it is being perceived or discussed by whom and in which context.
*To elaborate on different perspectives, it is recommended that you first draw rich pictures individually/in homogenous groups and then in heterogenous groups.
°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
We want to make sure our project asks relevant research questions from the point of view of societal priorities. We want to identify the respective demand for the knowledge .
We would like to develop a joint problem framing by making use of the collective knowledge of the group. To start we would like to summarize the knowledge on the topic and gain an overview. We would like to use a means of expression that removes potential hierarchies between participants.
We would like to make different problem framings explicit in order to agree on with which framing(s) to work in our project.
We have the feeling that there are hidden normative positions in our project. We don't know how to identify them and how to deal with them to meet scientific standards.
^Focusing on the first steps of the method
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.
Within a bigger project, we are several actors working at the interface areas of several topics. We want to find out which individuals work on similar intersections of topics.
We would like to clarify what each of the involved partners (or subprojects) could contribute to and benefit from the overall project. Furthermore, it could be useful to know whether important topics are missing.
We want to initiate a more in-depth exchange among (sub-) projects so that they start swapping ideas.
We would like to identify a boundary object that is tangible to all actors involved.
(no tool at this stage)
* To elaborate on different perspectives, it is recommended that you first draw rich pictures individually/in homogenous groups and then in heterogenous groups.
Jointly conduct research
We want to generate a set of possible future development scenarios to allow developing a shared vision for the future.
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.
We want to collaboratively develop an experiment or an intervention, respectively, in a test setting (or as a real world experiment) and evaluate the outcomes.
Such an intervention can hardly be implemented by referring to a single method; it requires its own project design including a combination of methods, but also guiding principles,.e.g. on risk considerations and impact orientation. You may refer to the https://www.reallabor-netzwerk.de (in German) for some guidance or to the OpenLivingLabDays for actual discussions.
We feel the various parts of our co-production project have lost their interconnections or have developed in different directions. We would like to find out whether and which (new) links can be made.
Our collaboration doesn’t work as anticipated. We think we need to clarify whether some subprojects deal with overlapping questions or issues.
We would like to discuss an issue more in-depth from the perspective of different fields in order to increase understanding.
We want to jointly advance the work of various (sub-) projects or project parts. We hope that, by doing so, we get a better and more comprehensive picture of the project as a whole.
Being part of a bigger project, I would like to get feedback from other subprojects on my research idea, research questions and approach.
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.
Different group members disagree about which facts are relevant, which interpretations (of facts) are adequate, and which strategies are useful for solving a problem. We would like to collect, weigh and decide on underlying arguments and rationales.
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.
*To elaborate on different perspectives, it is recommended that you first draw rich pictures individually/in homogenous groups and then in heterogenous groups.
°This method is mainly suitable to collect knowledge. To integrate knowledge, additional methods are required.
+This method is mainly helpful to elaborate on facts (but not that much to weigh and discuss underlying rationales).
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).
Jointly explore ways to impact in science and society
We would like to test or evaluate the assumptions and hypotheses about how our research would lead or contribute to a process of (societal) change.
We want to produce concrete transformation options taking actors and stakeholders' needs into account.
We are a heterogeneous group of experts and would like to collectively publish the insights gained in our project.
Our envisaged project outcomes are clear. However, we are not sure about intended and unintended effect the project had. Therefore, we would like to identify them from the perspective of the various involved actors.
td-net – Network for Transdisciplinarity Research