[Drafted in 2016; posted as is in 2021]
In this project we use of the phrase ‘transdiscplinarity’ to indicate the need for integration of not only natural and social sciences, but also science and local knowledges, in addressing climate change and water challenges. Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas (2006:471) designate transdisciplinarity to refer firstly to “interdisciplinarity between basic and applied sciences on the one hand, and social and human sciences on the other” (i.e., interdisciplinarity that transcend the ‘boundaries’ of science knowledges). Secondly, transdisciplinarity move beyond just the integration of different science disciplines, but also aims to integrate science knowledges and local knowledges, in a ‘democratisation’ of knowledge production that recognises a “plurality of forms of knowledge, world views and the ethical values connected to them within different social and cultural groups” (Rist & Dahdouh-Guebas 2006:472). Transdisciplinarity thus involves a shift in who producers and users of knowledge are, towards co-production of knowledge (Gibbons & Nowotny 2000; Pohl 2008:47), what Jasanoff (2003:235) calls “polycentric, interactive, and multiple processes of knowledge making”. Russell and colleagues (2008:461) identify the characteristics of transdisciplinarity as a problem focus (namely research that deals with and is contextualised in ‘real-world’ problems), an evolving methodology (research that involves iterative, reflective processes responsive to particular questions, settings and groupings), and collaboration (between science disciplines and external actors).
Transdisciplinarity is specifically relevant when studying complex societal issues (Apgar et al 2009:4) “under conditions of scientific uncertainty” (Scoones 1999:495), which is the case with climate change and water. The November 2011 N’Djamena Declaration on Adaptation to Climate Change, Indigenous Pastoralism, Traditional Knowledge and Meteorology in Africa highlighted the need for synergies between local and science knowledges that can inform policy and practice (Climate Frontlines 2011). And for McNeeley and colleagues (2012:478) climate change “compels the need for a new relationship between society and science”. (See Russell et al (2008) for a general discussion on the drivers of transdisciplinarity, of which one is an environmental imperative.)
Whilst transdisciplinarity might be necessary, in reality it is not widely practiced, partly due to the difficulties of articulating knowledges based on seemingly incompatible ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, ideologies, conceptual frameworks, and linguistics (Apgar et al 2009:4, 6; Crane et al 2011:179; Rickards et al 2011:3; Rist & Dahdouh-Guebas 2006:467; Vogel et al 2007:351; Wainwright 2010:983). In broad, the technical language of science knowledges and the performative aspects of local knowledges do not seemingly articulate easily. Rather, various ‘domains of articulation’ are required for local and science knowledges to be integrated in policy and practice. With ‘domains of articulation’ I mean the broad areas of similarities or complementarities that make it possible for local and science knowledges to articulate / integrate.
Both knowledge systems must have an openness to learn from one another, and the language of one another. In climate change studies then top-down approaches of understanding climate change – what Rickards et al (2011:1) call the scalar perspective – which relies mostly of scenarios, forecasting, and modelling, have to be open to the ‘experiential perspective’ in which an actor viewpoint with multi-factorial context is adopted in ethnographic and participatory research methods (Crate 2011:176; Rickards et al 2011:2). This involves an acknowledgement of the plurality of interests in which it is not just about scientists educating local people, but local people educating scientists about their different knowledges, uses and needs. Apgar and colleagues (2009:5) though bring to attention that barriers to such collaborative learning is primary organisational and social. Vogel and colleagues (2007:351) therefore, instead of using metaphors of ‘bridging’ knowledge systems and fields, prefer to use the imagery of “complex labyrinths of communication and engagement”.
The process of learning is described by Apgar and colleagues (2009:5) as “collective dialogical processes” and by Wynne (quoted in Scoones 1999:495) as “complex processes of epistemic negotiation”, in which there is no reification of one knowledge system or field over another (Agrawal 1995). What is rather crucial is the scrutiny of evidence sources through dialogue. The outcome is described by Patiño and Gauthier (2009:179), who looked at the integration of local knowledges in Canada into climate change decision-making, as “integrating the multiple dimensions (e.g. social, economic, biophysical); the multiple realities (e.g. rural community members, scientific community members); and the multiple modes of inquiry (e.g. qualitative, quantitative) involved in climate change vulnerability and adaptation”. It seems then appropriate to rephrase Cornell (2010:127) slightly, and to state that transdisciplinary climate research is indeed frontier research.
Examples in climate change studies: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/research_areas/tanzania/index.html
50shadesofevidence 