Introduction

Scholars often refer to the geological epoch of today as the Anthropocene—the time during which humans have significantly shaped the geology and ecosystems of this planet.  Regardless of the term that individuals use, the effect of humans on the planet has ignited a range of problems at the intersection between the environment and society.  These problems revolve around the rise in pollution, the changes in climate, the decline in biodiversity, the pressures on food production, the surge in energy demands, and the urbanization of countries.  

In recent decades, researchers began to recognize their existing tools and disciplines may not be adequate to address these multifaceted problems.  In response, researchers from more than one academic discipline, such as the environment and sociology, attempted to cooperate to explore these matters.  Initially, each field of researchers would independently apply the ideologies, theories, methodologies, and tools they had learned over many years, even decades, but then convene to share the information and findings they had uncovered.  This approach, in which each field of research largely worked in parallel, but shared their perspectives and insights, is sometimes called multidisciplinary research.

These researchers, as they proceeded, recognized their approach was not adequate to explore many key questions.  Therefore, rather than work in parallel, researchers from distinct fields began to blend their methods and knowledge, sometimes interdisciplinary research.  Occasionally, these combinations would even generate novel academic disciplines, such as climate change.  Alternatively, these combinations would merely shift the boundaries of existing disciplines. 

Yet, even interdisciplinary researchers experienced impediments to their pursuits.  They sometimes felt their existing disciplines or combinations of disciplines were not comprehensive enough to solve the intractable matters they were exploring.  They sometimes felt divorced from the experiences, perspectives, and insights of the communities, organizations, and societies they were attempting to assist.  And they sometimes felt disempowered to apply the results they uncovered to benefit their society.   

Transdisciplinary research partly originated from these concerns.  That is, transdisciplinary research combines several movements in which researchers attempt to develop theories and knowledge that transcends the boundaries of disciplines—not only existing disciplines but all possible disciplines.  In addition to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research, proponents of transdisciplinary research typically invite people from outside academia not only to be participants but to be active members of the research team. These people, sometimes called non-academic actors, contribute to decisions around the research question, design, methods, analysis, interpretation, and communication.  This approach not only extends the knowledge and insight of the research team but also facilitates attempts to apply the findings in practice (but see Pohl, 2008).

Case study

One study, conducted by Stauffacher et al. (2008), illustrates some features of transdisciplinary research, with the caveat that transdisciplinary research is not a unified approach.  Indeed, proponents of transdisciplinary research often propose conflicting definitions, methodologies, and priorities.      

Stauffacher et al. (2008) conducted this research in Appenzell Ausserrhoden, a canton of Switzerland, comprising 20 communities and about 50 000 residents.  The communities that are located considerable distances from large cities and national highways are experiencing a range of interrelated problems.  Residents are shifting to larger cities, diminishing labor opportunities and compromising wealth.  To attract wealth, the region must utilize the landscape—to maintain agriculture and tourism—but without damaging this landscape for future generations.

To address and to explore these matters, a team of researchers embraced a transdisciplinary approach.  That is, they felt the need to develop and to consider tools and perspectives that may transcend the limitations of their academic disciplines, with the assistance of individuals outside the boundaries of academia—such as industry leaders, regional planners, political advisors, and so forth.  They wanted to conduct research with society rather than merely research for society.  They hoped this pursuit would not only uncover novel perspectives and solutions but also extend the repertoire of skills and capabilities to conduct research across the communities, utilizing the dormant intellectual potential of society.    

Scholars have not developed a unified transdisciplinary approach, although many researchers divide this research into three main phases—roughly comprising attempts to clarify the problem and resources, to implement methods that uncover novel insights, and to integrate and utilize these insights.  This case study divided these three main phases into six steps, primarily adapted from Scholz and Tietje (2002). 

First, the researchers collaborated with stakeholders to uncover a guiding question that would underpin all subsequent phases.  After significant consultation, the question revolved around how the ecological quality of landscape in this canton can be preserved and improved while the value of this landscape is increased.  In particular, the researchers and president of the canton initially agreed to a case study.  Next, a steering workgroup—comprising four researchers and a variety of stakeholders such as a farmer, mayor, historian, regional planner, and tourism administrator—participated in informal workshops and facilitated discussions to define the problem and guiding question.  Interviews with other key stakeholders also guided this approach. 

Second, the steering workgroup then explored which perspectives to examine.  Specifically, this workgroup first established an advisory board from the region, comprising senior representatives, such as a CEO of industrial companies, a bank manager, a community mayor, and a farmer.  The steering workgroup and advisory board participated in more facilitated workshops to consider which perspectives should be explored in this research.  The researchers also complemented these workshops with a thorough literature review, partly to ascertain which disciplines might benefit this project.  This step also uncovered the key themes to prioritize: nature, tourism, and rural settlement

Third, the steering workgroup conducted a system analysis, applying a range of both established methods and informal methods.  In particular, the steering workgroup conducted focus groups and interviews with a broader segment of the population, called a reference group, including teachers, medical practitioners, architects, foresters, and pastors to explore their perspectives around the main priorities of nature, tourism, and rural settlement. The steering workgroup also analyzed historical documents about the region, media excerpts, and well as relevant data, stored at the national statistical office.  The researchers applied a range of tools, such as impact matrixes, system grids, Mic-Mac-Analysis, and system graphs, to organize and to interpret the data. The key themes and insights that emerged from these analyses were then presented to the reference group to generate more feedback.  

Fourth, the steering workgroup conducted a formative scenario analysis to distill inspiring scenarios or circumstances that could arise in the future.  To generate these scenarios, reference groups participated in facilitated discussion that were designed to spark creativity around future changes that might unfold.  In addition, the researchers combined various levels of the impact factors—the events or changes that might influence key outcomes—to extend these future possibilities.  Finally, the steering workgroup presented a range of possible future scenarios to the reference group.  The workgroup utilized maps, collages, photos, and other methods to help the individuals visualize these scenarios.  The reference group then contributed to discussions about which scenarios should be evaluated in the subsequent steps. 

Fifth, the steering workgroup conducted multi-criteria analysis to evaluate the scenarios. In particular, the general public received surveys and specialists participated in interviews to evaluate these scenarios.  Individuals indicated their attitudes to the scenario holistically and then judged the scenarios on a set of specific criteria. These data informed conclusions around which scenarios are most beneficial around nature, tourism, and rural settlement

Finally, the steering workgroup and advisory group developed a report that encapsulated a shared understanding of the results and a plan on how to proceed in the future.  The results were also published in many formats. As this example demonstrates, the researchers tended to commence this project informally, then applied some more established methods, and ended more informally again.

The scenarios and insights that emanated from this research were translated into practice.  Some individuals, for example, opened a holiday village that applies some of the principles that emanated from the scenarios.  To illustrate, the buildings were composed of word derived from the surrounding forests.  The construction utilized principles that minimize energy consumption.  The villages is heated using wood chips that were extracted from the forests as well.  

How to conduct transdisciplinary research

Researchers have not developed a standard model that stipulates how to conduct transdisciplinary research.  Instead, scholars have proposed a range of approaches (Bergmann et al., 2005; Jahn et al., 2012; Scholz et al., 2006).  According to Lawrence et al. (2022), most if not all these approaches comprise three distinct but overlapping phases.

During the first phase, the researchers establish a team of interested members, including representatives of all stakeholders, and explores the problem they want to address and the question that will guide this research.  The problem will correspond to a practical, tangible concern and not only a conceptual, theoretical interest (Wickson et al., 2006).   

During the second phase, the team design, and then apply, methods to collect data, to analyze or explore these data, to interpret or synthesize these data, and to generate novel, helpful, and robust conclusions or knowledge.  Typically, as Wickson et al (2006) underscores, researchers need to explore methods and methodologies that are not specific to a particular discipline.  Certainly, researchers may integrate methods, techniques, principles, values, and epistemologies, from existing disciplines to generate a unified, but evolving, approach or methodology.  All the researchers share this unified approach, despite the possibility that each person might be more familiar or attuned to a specific discipline.  Furthermore, the non-academic actors contribute to these decisions, shaping the problems, goals, methods, and criteria used to conduct and to evaluate the project

During the third phase, the team integrate these conclusions or knowledge to generate transdisciplinary perspectives and then seeks opportunities to publish, communicate, and apply the insights they gained. 

How researchers complete these phases varies considerably.  This variation enables flexibility and creativity but can also confuse and overwhelm novice researchers.  To help research teams reach decisions about how to proceed, Bergmann et al. (2005) developed an extensive set of criteria that individuals can apply to evaluate transdisciplinary research.  These criteria may help researchers design transdisciplinary research projects as well.  For example, to formulate the project, researchers could answer questions like

• Does the project team comprise specialists in academic disciplines and competencies that could address the key facets of this problem or object of study?

• Does the project address a problem that is relevant to the everyday life of a community?

• Has this problem been translated to a scientific question—a question that has not been resolved adequately in the literature so far?

• Has the project team formulated criteria they can apply and assess to evaluate the success of this project?

• Has the project team distinguished the scientific goals from the practical goals?

• Is the project team willing to uncover any result—as opposite to seeking a particular finding?

Bergmann et al. (2005) then present criteria researchers could follow to complete other phases, such as establishing the committees and teams, assigning responsibilities, financing the project, planning the project, designing the methods, and so forth

How to conduct transdisciplinary research: Insight discovery

Scholars have uncovered a range of other methods and competencies that enhance transdisciplinary research.  For example, Pearce et al. (2022) discuss a method called insight discovery.  To illustrate, during their life, researchers develop a mental model—a set of beliefs and attitudes—about the problem or setting they plan to study. 

Next, researchers are exposed to information that deviates from this mental model, evoking a sense of dissonance or unease.  Perhaps, when exploring climate change or some other problem, a stakeholder might express an opinion that shatters their expectations.  Or they might uncover some data, perhaps in a report, that diverged from their assumptions about this topic.  Rather than dismiss this information, however, transdisciplinary researchers should develop the capacity to contemplate and explore this tension.  The researchers may contemplate how they can adapt their mental model to accommodate this information or may explore a solution that resolves this contradiction.   

Third, the researcher experiences a state, called a liminal or transition space, in which they recognize their mental model and beliefs are limited and commit to embrace unchartered territory.  They realize they are willing to evaluate, to update, and even to discard, their beliefs and assumptions about the problem.  They become more receptive to the perspectives and advice of other stakeholders of the project.

Fourth, the researcher then shifts their mental model, experiencing a moment of relief and a feeling of achievement.  Once they experience this insight, they cannot revert to their original, obsolete mental model.  Although this sequence of thoughts may be intuitive, researchers who are attuned to this sequence of events may be able to integrate and to assimilate diverse perspectives, theories, and methods—the cornerstone of transdisciplinary research

How to conduct transdisciplinary research: Digital research infrastructures

Scholars have begun to converse about how digital infrastructure and other resources might facilitate transdisciplinary research.  Opitz et al. (2021), for example, outline a platform, called dataARC, that facilitates transdisciplinary projects.  In particular, the platform stores relevant datasets about a problem and links datasets from distinct academic disciplines  The data are carefully organized and reconfigured to be comprehendible to individuals who are not specialists in the field—facilitating transdisciplinary work.   

Benefits of transdisciplinary research: Application of research to practice

One of the pressing objectives of many universities and research institutions today is to generate insights that enhance society.  That is, in recent decades, institutions have become increasingly motivated to enhance the impact of their research.  As studies reveals, only some, rather than all, variants of transdisciplinary research are especially suited to this objective (Pohl, 2008). 

Specifically, Pohl (2008) conducted interviews of researchers who had contributed to diverse transdisciplinary research projects.  As Pohl observed, in some transdisciplinary projects, the researchers initially apply their disciplinary theories and methods to explore the topic.   Next, they reconfigure, rearrange, and integrate this disciplinary knowledge to accommodate the perceived goals of the community and other stakeholders.  These researchers, therefore, tend to assume, perhaps unconsciously, that academics are tasked with the role to reconfigure, rearrange, and integrate knowledge.  They feel their role is to inform other stakeholders—and conceptualize these stakeholders more as individuals to refine academic perspectives rather than to produce knowledge together. 

In many instances, the knowledge that emanates from this transdisciplinary research is not applied in practice.  That is, the knowledge did not always resonate with the culture and interests of the audience.

In contrast, when researchers participate in attempts to co-produce knowledge as a collective endeavor, these problems dissipated.  These researchers appreciate the four policy cultures that Elzinga (1996) distinguishes: the bureaucratic or administrative, the academic or scientific, the economic or commercial, and the civic or societal. These policy cultures tend to compete with each other to attract resources and power, seeking to direct scientific pursuits and technological advances in directions that overlap with their interests.  The academics feel their role is partly help the four policy cultures collaborate and co-produce knowledge.  This goal, according to Pohl (2008), facilitates the application of research into policy.

Benefits of transdisciplinary research: Diversity of knowledges

Transdisciplinary research is designed to uncover helpful knowledge and insights on how to solve an ongoing, multifaceted, significant, and unbounded problem with no definitive solutions—sometimes called wicked problems.  After a transdisciplinary project is completed, the researchers may uncover diverse variants of knowledge.  They might discover how distinct bodies, such as various organizations or individuals, interact and affect one another.  They might clarify the goals and objectives that various stakeholders prioritize, the conflicts between these goals and objectives, and plans to achieve these goals and resolve the conflicts.  The knowledge that academic and non-academic researchers uncover can be divided into three distinct kinds: (Brandt et al., 2013): orientation knowledge, system knowledge, and transformation knowledge.    

Specifically, especially during the initial phases of transdisciplinary research, the researchers clarify the key goals and objectives of various stakeholders, called orientation knowledge.  They identify the priorities and perspectives that shape the decisions and behaviors of relevant stakeholders. As the research progressed, the researchers unearth key observations and theories or accounts to explain these observations, called systems knowledge.  Finally, during the project, the researchers consider how they use this systems knowledge to fulfill the goals and objectives of this project—practical insights that are called transformation knowledge.  All of these insights enhance the capacity of these researchers to conduct transdisciplinary research more effectively in the future, sometimes called process knowledge.  In practice, orientation knowledge, system knowledge, and transformation knowledge—as well as process knowledge—are acquired during all phases of the research project.

Benefits of transdisciplinary research: Motivations

Many researchers perceive transdisciplinary research as rewarding and challenging.  To illustrate, as Katoh et al. (2022) demonstrated, when researchers embrace curiosity and challenge, they are more likely to gravitate to transdisciplinary research and to collaborate with industry—especially if they tend to be extraverted and agreeable in personality.  Researchers are more likely to experience a sense of vitality, and not as susceptible to burnout, when they experience this sense of curiosity and challenge at work.

Challenges of transdisciplinary research: Overview

When individuals conduct transdisciplinary research, they experience a range of challenges.  Indeed, some researchers have proposed taxonomies to classify these challenges (e.g., Lang et al., 2012).  For example, Brandt et al. (2013) distinguished five clusters of challenges:

• transdisciplinary research is not underpinned by a coherent or unified definition, understanding, or framework

• the relationships between methods, phases, and categories of knowledge has not been clarified

• researchers can seldom, in practice, apply the optimal practices that are advocated in the literature

• transdisciplinary researchers do not often empower practitioners and stakeholders to the extent that best practice recommends, such as granting these individuals the authorities to decide about procedures

• the social and academic impact of transdisciplinary research is hard to evaluate

Lawrence et al. (2022) divided these challenges into three main constellations: biases, evaluation, and collaboration with stakeholders.

Challenges of transdisciplinary research: Biases

All research is susceptible to some of the biases, preferences, and experiences of researchers.  Even when researchers want to study the effect of some scenario or intervention on some outcome, and strive to utilize techniques that scientists advocate, their choices may bias the conclusions.  That is, may choose to explore only scenarios and outcomes that are likely to coincide with their preferences or preconceptions. Despite this bias, some of the features of scientific methods—ranging from randomized control trials, statistical analyses, and peer review—tend to limit the impact of these biases on the findings and conclusions they generate.  

The methods, results, interpretations, and conclusions that correspond to transdisciplinary research, however, are more susceptible to these biases.  Indeed, in most instances, the research is specifically designed to explore and to integrate the priorities and concerns of stakeholders.  The stakeholders influence which problems to explore, which methods to apply, which results to prioritize, and which practical implications to pursue.  Therefore, relative to many other research endeavors, the methods and outcomes of transdisciplinary research are even more dependent on the experiences and needs of individuals. 

Furthermore, as Lawrence et al. (2022) underscores, some of the norms of communities may amplify these biases.  For example, some communities, because of prejudices or motivations to maintain political power, might assume the perspective of some stakeholders is more valuable than is the perspective of other stakeholders.  The norms of society, therefore, may diverge from the norms that evolved to generate trustworthy and sustainable insights. To address these concerns, Lawrence et al. recommend that

• researchers need to include a range of stakeholders, often called actors, in all phases of transdisciplinary research; they should help identify the problem or guiding questions, design and apply methods to collate insights, and then evaluate and apply these insights. 

• all the individuals who contribute, and not only the academics, should be granted opportunities to contemplate and discuss their assumptions and desires about this project.  The interests of each actor should be as explicit as possible.  Some researchers even apply established methods to clarify the motivations of each person to pursue this research and attitudes towards this research (see Guimarães et al, 2019; Lotfian et al., 2020)

• the leaders of this project should instill the norm to pursue transformations that benefit the community in the future.  This emphasis on the future diminishes the impact of more immediate needs on decisions and, instead, elicits the desire to benefit the community (cf Augsburg, 2014)

Yet, transdisciplinary researchers should recognize their goal is not to generate consensus about some objective findings. Instead, their results will generally be perceived as contested—and this ongoing debate is central to sustainable transformations. 

Challenges of transdisciplinary research: Evaluation

Evaluation is a key feature of transdisciplinary research. The researchers need to assess whether the quality of methods that were utilized, the accuracy of findings or outcomes, and the impact of this project on society.  These evaluations help researchers improve their knowledge about how to conduct transdisciplinary research more effectively in the future.  These evaluations also increase the accountability of researchers, motivating these individuals to conduct research that is rigorous, insightful, and useful. 

However, scholars have not developed consensus on how to evaluate transdisciplinary research.  Indeed, the circumstances and priorities of each project are unique.  Therefore, whether researcher can develop one evaluation framework that is suitable to all projects is ambitious.

Yet, because scholars have not developed consensus on how to evaluate transdisciplinary research, the utility of this research is hard to justify to funding bodies.  Because the utility of transdisciplinary research can be uncertain and because the projects are likely to evolve dramatically over time, funding bodies are either reluctant to fund these projects at all or willing to fund the project for only limited timeframes.  As a consequence of this uncertain or limited funding, researchers may not be able to attract other stakeholders or actors to the project.  Fortunately, in recent years, at least in some nations, more funding has been directed to transdisciplinary research (see Gillis et al., 2017).

The diverse priorities of academics and other actors can also complicate the evaluation of these projects.  Academics might value rigorous methods and significant results—values that overlap with scholarly publishers.  Other stakeholders might value hope, change, clarity, and other goals

Scholars have recommended a vast array of methods and approaches to evaluate transdisciplinary research (Carew & Wickson, 2010; Walter et al., 2007; Williams & Robinson, 2020). To illustrate Lawrence et al. (2022) and Williams and Robinson (2020) advocated a series of practices that can improve evaluations (for a review of principles to guide evaluation, see Klein, 2008).  For example  

• researchers should assess whether the perspectives of diverse actors were utilized and how this diversity was measured

• for example, researchers should assess the degree to which perspectives of both academics and other actors were utilized—and how barriers to this integration, such as disparities in access to information, access to resources, and expertise in methods, were addressed

• researchers should assess the quality and suitability of methodologies, tools, and other techniques to collect and to analyze data

• researchers should gauge the degree to which contributors reflect on their assumptions and discussed these assumptions with one another

• researchers should assess the effects of this project—that is, the changes in the knowledge and behavior of other stakeholders

• researchers should assess the knowledge that everyone acquired, during the research, about how to conduct transdisciplinary research more effectively—and evaluate the degree to which this ongoing learning was applied during the project

• researchers should identify more enduring impacts of this project—changes in governance or-technical systems that are more likely to persist

Challenges of transdisciplinary research: Collaboration with non-academic actors

Like other variants of participatory research, the central involvement of actors and stakeholders who are not trained academics can generate a range of complications.  One complication is the role of these non-academic actors might be underestimated.  According to Lawrence et al. (2022), some academics believe that discussions with other stakeholders, sitting around a shared table, may be sufficient to unearth novel, valuable, and robust insights and plans.  But this perception deviates from the assumption that such actors should be able to influence all decisions about the project, from the clarification of problems to the implementation of insights.  

A second complication is that non-academic actors might misuse the knowledge and credibility they gain from their participation in this project.  Because of their association with academics, their recommendations to the community may be perceived as legitimate, even when their perspective might actually be biased towards their own interests.  They might distill evidence from the project that is not representative of the overarching findings to promote their business, personal, or political agendas.

A third complication revolves around the distinct standards that academics and non-academic actors may observe.  Some academics may be inclined to discount methods that are suggested by other stakeholders.  Conversely, some non-academic actors might be inclined to discredit valuable scientific knowledge and methods, partly because of concealed motivations, social pressure, or other interests.  To resolve these complications

• Researchers need to utilize established methods, such as suitable committees, world cafes, appreciative inquiry, and other techniques, to empower non-academic actors.   For example, they could establish a steering committee and working groups that are represented by both academics and non-academic actors equally—and integrate the insights of this diversity of stakeholders to create these working groups.  They could also define the responsibilities of each member of the steering committee explicitly and consensually, and so forth

• Researchers should also learn how to communicate scientific information, such as equations, parameters, and models—as explicitly, simply, and transparently as they can

• Researchers should inspire all contributors to contemplate both their assumptions as well as the ideologies that elicit feelings of discomfort or tension.  Individuals should be encouraged to recognize and withstand some of their defensive responses to information or perspectives that deviate from their interests or preconceptions.

Challenges of transdisciplinary research: Integration of disciplines

Central to the transdisciplinary mindset is the attempt to integrate the epistemologies, theories, and practices of diverse academic disciplines.  This integration of epistemologies—in the beliefs on how to establish trust—is especially ambitious.  Over time, however, transdisciplinary researchers have shifted from the attempt to unify all epistemologies to the pursuit of opportunities to uncover commonalities that enabled a shared understanding (Wickson et al., 2006). 

To help integrate epistemologies, theories, and practices, Wickson et al. (2006) recommends that researchers embed themselves in the problem.  As researchers immerse themselves in the issue, they naturally integrate theoretical knowledges and lay perceptions to develop a more comprehensive perspective. 

Challenges of transdisciplinary research: Metrics

One concern that researchers have expressed about transdisciplinary research—as well as multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary projects—revolves around the metrics that leaders apply to evaluate universities.  To illustrate, transdisciplinary research is often dynamic, in which the problem and design evolves inexorably and frequently.  Researchers, therefore, are often unable to secure the funding they need to conduct this research.  Consequently, if universities prioritized transdisciplinary research, research income would diminish.  The institution would thus decline on university ranking schemes that prioritize research income—such as the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.  This drop in the rankings might deter students, decrease revenue, and ignite a sequence of other complications. 

Admittedly, one ranking scheme, UMR, does consider interdisciplinary—and presumably transdisciplinary—work.  Therefore, transdisciplinary research might improve rankings in one ranking scheme.  But none of the other major ranking schemes reward interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.  Consequently, in general, transdisciplinary research might, inadvertently, diminish the prestige of universities.   

Challenges of transdisciplinary research: Overlooked literature

Proponents of transdisciplinary research strive to uncover relevant theories and methods from any discipline or approach that could be relevant to their project.  Yet, because of this breadth of theories and methods, researchers may overlook relevant literature.  That is, they might enter search terms that differ from the keywords that are common in a specific field. 

Trujillo and Long (2018) recommend that a technique, called document co-citation analysis, might address this concern. In essence, document co-citation analysis is a technique that identifies sets of documents that are cited by the same individuals. 

This technique generates several benefits.  First, when applied proficiently, researchers can utilize this analysis to uncover a community of scholars who cite the same publications and, therefore, share their interests.  These scholars might thus be willing to collaborate effectively on a transdisciplinary project.  Second, these researchers can then uncover the publications these scholars have cited.  These publications are likely to be relevant to their shared interests but might otherwise have been overlooked. 

References

• Augsburg, T. (2014). Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary individual. World Futures, 70(3-4), 233-247.

• Bartomeus, I., & Dicks, L. V. (2019). The need for coordinated transdisciplinary research infrastructures for pollinator conservation and crop pollination resilience. Environmental Research

• Bergmann, M., Brohmann, B., Hoffmann, E., Loibl, M. C., Rehaag, R., Schramm, E., & Voß, J. P. (2005). Quality criteria of transdisciplinary research. A guide for the formative evaluation of research projects. ISOE-Studientexte, 13.

• Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., ... & Von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological economics, 92, 1-15.

• Carew, A. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). The TD wheel: a heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42(10), 1146-1155.

• Elzinga, A. (1996). Shaping worldwide consensus: the orchestration of global climate change research. Internationalism and Science, Cambridge, Taylor Graham Publishing, 223-253.

• Gillis, D., Nelson, J., Driscoll, B., Hodgins, K., Fraser, E., & Jacobs, S. (2017). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and education in Canada: A review and suggested framework. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 203-222.

• Guimarães, M. H., Pohl, C., Bina, O., & Varanda, M. (2019). Who is doing inter-and transdisciplinary research, and why? An empirical study of motivations, attitudes, skills, and behaviours. Futures, 112

• Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological economics, 79, 1-10.

• Katoh, S., Aalbers, R., & Sengoku, S. (2021). Effects and interactions of researcher’s motivation and personality in promoting interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Sustainability, 13(22), 12502.

• Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S116-S123.

• Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., ... & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability science, 7(1), 25-43.

• Lawrence, M. G., Williams, S., Nanz, P., & Renn, O. (2022). Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth, 5(1), 44-61.

• Lotfian, M., Ingensand, J., & Brovelli, M. A. (2020). A framework for classifying participant motivation that considers the typology of citizen science projects. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(12), 704.

• Opitz, R., Strawhacker, C., Buckland, P., Cothren, J., Dawson, T., Dugmore, A., ... & Thompson, P. (2021). A Lockpick's guide to dataARC: Designing infrastructures and building communities to enable transdisciplinary research. Internet Archaeology, 56.

• Pearce, B. J., Deutsch, L., Fry, P., Marafatto, F. F., & Lieu, J. (2022). Going beyond the AHA! moment: insight discovery for transdisciplinary research and learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1-10.

• Pohl, C. (2008). From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(1), 46-53.

• Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.     

• Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks

• Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., Krütli, P., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21(6), 409-422.

• Trujillo, C. M., & Long, T. M. (2018). Document co-citation analysis to enhance transdisciplinary research. Science advances, 4(1).

• Vienni Baptista, B., & Vilsmaier, U. (2022). Models of transdisciplinary knowledge production at universities: A Romanian case study. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1757-1772.

• Walter, A. I., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W. (2007). Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Evaluation and program planning, 30(4), 325-338.

• Wickson, F., Carew, A. L., & Russell, A. W. (2006). Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38(9), 1046-1059.

• Williams, S., & Robinson, J. (2020). Measuring sustainability: An evaluation framework for sustainability transition experiments. Environmental Science & Policy, 103, 58-66.