Guidelines for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research
Complex societal challenges such as the climate crisis, increasing misinformation, polarisation and pandemics require both innovative approaches and the integration of existing knowledge, i.e. both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (ITD) research.
Both interdisciplinary (ID) and transdisciplinary (TD) research require the skills and methods to approach science differently than within the boundaries of a single discipline. However, acknowledging this need can be quite difficult.
The good news is that reaching this page means you have made a valuable start! The rest of your journey is supported by this collection of guidelines.
Here, we provide a roadmap for ITD research (Figure 1) and practical guidelines for the various stages of the journey, including applicable methods. To do this, we have synthesised materials created by researchers, think tanks and associations from universities around the world and adapted them to the Estonian context.
Our goal is to highlight key aspects and guide readers to resources where they can learn more. Therefore, we do not delve deeply into any single topic but offer essential initial references.
Additionally, we introduce the state of ITD research at the University of Tartu during the 2024/2025 academic year and share stories from experienced researchers. They are useful for both beginners and seasoned researchers who wish to deepen their understanding of the behind-the-scenes aspects of ITD research.
Figure 1. ITD research action plan
Quick links to the main topics:
Inter- and transdisciplinary reserarch, its advantages and disadvantages
The basis of inter- and transdisciplinarity (ITD) is, of course, disciplinary research: to connect something, you need something to connect. But the real world and its problems are not separated by scientific boundaries. This creates the need for ITD research.
Key characteristics and frameworks of ITD research
📄 Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological economics, 79, 1-10.
📄 Pohl, C., Klein, J. T., Hoffmann, S., Mitchell, C., & Fam, D. (2021). Conceptualising transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science & Policy, 118, 18-26.
Next, let us define the different forms of research.
Disciplinary research (Figure 2a) is conducted within the framework of a single academic field, aiming to create new knowledge specific to that field, to fill a gap. For example, the basic research of the Institute of Psychology could focus on the psychological mechanisms of cognition and personality processes.
Figure 2a. Disciplinarity
When researchers from several scientific fields are brought together under the same roof, it is multidisciplinary research (Figure 2b). In this case, researchers with ‘homes’ in different scientific fields work on the same research question within the framework of one project, but essentially separately. Disciplinary knowledge is not synthesised and researchers from each field reach their own answer
Figure 2b. Multidisciplinary research
Interdisciplinary (ID) research (Figure 2c) emerges at the intersection of multiple fields that explore different aspects of the same or similar phenomenon.
This can involve combining several research areas in one major field (e.g. the social sciences) or crossing disciplinary boundaries (e.g. collaboration between natural sciences and humanities).
For example, ID research that combines several fields is carried out at the Centre of Excellence ‘Estonian Roots’. Among others, researchers in archaeogenomics, archaeology, linguistics and folkloristics explain the history of cultural and genetic diversity in Estonia and neighbouring countries.
An example of ID research that crosses the boundaries of scientific disciplines is the ‘Deep Transitions’ project of the University of Tartu. In this project, historians, economists, environmental sociologists and communication and transition researchers looked at ways to trigger a transition to sustainable and equitable energy, transport and communication systems.
Figure 2c. Interdisciplinary research
Transdisciplinary (TD) research (Figure 2d) usually includes ID research and, in addition, collaboration with partners outside academic institutions.
TD research is not only carried out with the aim to fill professional gaps but also to study multifaceted societal problems in an applied way and offer solutions through various ways of knowledge transfer.
Framing the problem in cooperation with all partners – both from research institutions and elsewhere – is important. This means bringing together a wide range of knowledge and values, as both scientific and societal perspectives on the problem are necessary.
At the University of Tartu, this is the goal in a joint project consisting of four research grants for monitoring and analysing transition processes in Ida-Virumaa, which is funded by the Just Transition Fund.
Figure 2d. Transdisciplinary research
These guidelines are particularly useful for ID and TD research.
Since TD research also involves partners from outside the university or research institution, problems can be framed in a way that allows for a solution that is acceptable to those directly involved in the topic and is likely to be more applicable.
For researchers, TD research provides an opportunity to explore the real-world applicability of topics in their field, learn new approaches to problem-solving and recognise the applicability or limitations of their methods beyond their own discipline.
TD research is a process of learning and convergence. It involves many small decisions along the way, with new individuals, organisations, or academic disciplines being included as the project evolves.
In addition, TD research creates a space for justice because it gives a voice to the so-called ordinary people who are affected by the problem, but who, in the case of so-called helicopter science, cannot have a say in its resolution. These are, for example, patients, industrial workers or everyday computer users.
ITD research can provide an excellent opportunity to be innovative, which is generally expected of research. This also increases the opportunities for publishing research.
Ten steps to ensure that research has societal impact and pathways to achieve societal impact
📄 Pohl, C., Krütli, P., & Stauffacher, M. (2017). Ten Reflective Steps for Rendering Research Societally Relevant. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 26(1), 43–51.
📄 Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., & Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2020). From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 34-47.
The following is a review article that analyzes ITD research and related sustainability challenges. Among other things, Brandt and his colleagues emphasize that the best practices of ITD research (which we also present here) are often not implemented. ITD can provide an excellent opportunity to be innovative, and this is generally expected of research. This also expands the opportunities for publication.
📄 Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D. J., & Von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological economics, 92, 1-15.
Those interested in ITD research need to do a lot of introspection to truly understand their disciplinary and other scientific burdens, which is known to be somewhat uncomfortable. You can find tools for drawing disciplinary boundaries in the section ‘Starting research’.
Even a scientist (and a person in general) who considers themselves very open-minded may find they stubbornly cling to their perspective on certain topics. In addition, prejudices toward ‘other’ partners may emerge.
First, the position of non-academic partners may not seem serious because it lacks scientific basis.
For example, the Utrecht University ITD guidance material describes overemphasising scientific knowledge as one of the challenges. This is a statement that can cause resistance in a researcher who takes pride in their work. At the same time, the opposite situation can also become an obstacle in the ITD research process, where science seems too distant and rigid to non-academic partners. Addressing such discrepancies consciously is important.
It helps to start by identifying power relations (you can find tools in the subsection ‘Starting research’) so that they are not overshadowed by discomfort. If conflicts remain unresolved and not discussed, this can affect the course of the entire project. Tools for identifying potential conflicts and having difficult conversations are listed in the subsection ‘During the project’.
When collaborating with non-academic partners, it is essential to bear in mind that they are usually not interested in the research as such (articles or theoretical approaches) but in the practical solution of the problem. Therefore, it is worth considering who should be covered by what, i.e. the results that are important to different partners.
Anthropologist Cassis Killian shares experiences and failures in collaboration with practitioners in the following article.
📄 Killian, C. (2017-2018). I would prefer not to: Dilemmas in Collaboration. Collaborative Anthropologies 10 (1-2), 95-123.
Prejudices and a certain amount of friction can also appear within the academic world. It is no secret that representatives of different scientific fields feel differently and are sometimes unequally involved in solving important problems (and access to funding).
For example, social scientists and humanities researchers believe that previous rounds of the European Union's research and innovation funding programme (e.g. Horizon 2020) did not sufficiently cover their fields of research, even though the problems being studied would have required it. With the upcoming 10th Framework Programme, the European Union emphasises the importance of ID research and plans to create more opportunities for it. However, there is a risk of falling into the same trap if the programme development process does not sufficiently involve all scientific disciplines. Therefore, care must be taken in ID research to ensure that historical biases do not exacerbate tensions.
In conclusion, the most important thing in ITD research is to know yourself and be aware of the assumptions and even prejudices of your own field of research. We provide tools to address these issues below.
Second in importance is openness, i.e. the understanding that other perspectives are valuable and create additional learning opportunities, even if they seem strange or alienating.
Third, we highlight the courage to engage with different perceptions substantively.
Figure 3 summarises the advantages, opportunities and obstacles of ITD research.
Figure 3. Advantages, opportunities and obstacles of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research
Spending time on developing new skills and proactively dealing with potential challenges may seem tedious. It is not something that can be done overnight or easily. However, all of these challenges create a kind of pressure to grow as a researcher, which is a value in itself.
There are also many structural obstacles on the journey of ITD research. These include, among others, the discipline-based structure of academic institutions in terms of both identity and funding as well as the traditional discipline-focused nature of research project funding mechanisms and recognition systems (e.g. research awards).
However, the authors of this text do not wish to take the tempting path of merely listing abundant challenges and complaining about them. Instead, our primary goal is to provide support and inspiration to overcome these difficulties.
We have compiled a comprehensive list of other ITD research guidelines, toolkits, handbooks (online or in the University of Tartu library) and (scientific) articles. We will insert them into the guidelines here under a suitable topic, but those interested can also find the complete list and a list of additional materials here.
It is not easy to assess the extent to which research work falling within the definition of ITD research is carried out at the University of Tartu. Ideally, this would require a detailed examination of the work of research team.
A rough estimation of the scale and distribution can be made by analysing which researchers at the University of Tartu engage in collaborative ITD research. For this, we look at publishing with authors from outside their own structural unit.
The four academic structural units of the University of Tartu are the Faculty of Arts and Humanities (HV), the Faculty of Social Sciences (SV), the Faculty of Medicine (MV), and the Faculty of Science and Technology (LT). (For the sake of clarity, we use the word faculty here only to refer to the structural units of the University of Tartu.)
Figure 4 shows how the 5,800 journal articles written by University of Tartu researchers between 2021 and 2023 are distributed based on whether they were written in collaboration with researchers from their own field or from other fields. Only articles indexed in the World of Science and Scopus databases are included.
It turns out that researchers from the fields of Social Sciences and Medicine have published slightly more articles crossing the boundaries of their own fields compared to others (5.83%).
Figure 4. Distribution of journal articles by University of Tartu researchers based on whether the authors included researchers from their own field or other fields, 2021-2023, %
Let us take a closer look at the partners that University of Tartu researchers publish journal articles with when they collaborate with researchers from the same university from outside their field.
Table 1 shows that in the faculties of Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences and Medicine, most collaborative research is conducted with the Faculty of Science and Technology. Conversely, in the Faculty of Science and Technology, the most common collaboration is with researchers from the Faculty of Medicine.
| HV | SV | MV | LT | Kokku |
HV | 96,89 | 0,86 | 0,08 | 2,18 | 100% |
SV | 0,99 | 94,17 | 1,43 | 3,41 | 100% |
MV | 0,06 | 1,01 | 90,21 | 8,72 | 100% |
LT | 0,51 | 0,68 | 2,49 | 96,32 | 100% |
Table 1. Percentage of journal articles published in collaboration with researchers from other faculties at the University of Tartu, 2021-2023, %
This brief overview suggests that at the University of Tartu, it is the norm to publish with researchers from your own field. Of course, ITD research can also be carried out in this way, as different academic fields are combined in one structural unit.
Relatively little research is done that crosses the boundaries of the four traditional major fields in a way that results in joint scientific articles. At the same time, the University of Tartu has many good examples of collaboration between researchers from different fields, but the process does not lead to the formal publication of the research work.
The literature on ITD research emphasises a variety of skills that are particularly valuable in this type of research. It is not possible to list these competences exhaustively, as many of them depend directly on the problem being solved, the research question posed and the methods chosen, as is the case in science in general. Nevertheless, some broadly applicable skills can be highlighted.
ITD research is characterised by a distinctive mindset and set of skills, as discussed by Guimarães and colleagues in their article (2019) and by Stokols in his chapter on ID research, which focuses on young researchers.
📄 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, 102441.
📄 Stokols, D. (2014). Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians.
Most materials introducing ITD research first emphasise openness, active listening and a genuine interest in alternative perspectives. These skills create the mindset required for ITD research.
Even though collaboration may reveal that researchers who consider themselves open-minded are, in some respects, unexpectedly rigid, the self-definition of being ‘consciously open’ is an important entry-level requirement.
This openness is particularly essential because curiosity and respect for new perspectives and ideas can be difficult to train during collaboration. Therefore, it is easier for all participants if the partners bring with them motivation, interest and readiness to encounter different views and methods from the start.
We recommend describing the mindset for ITD research at the first meetings of the working group and emphasising its importance so that everyone is familiar with the ground rules. Embracing openness can also encourage more pragmatic group members to engage fully with the activities.
Next, we will list a number of skills necessary for ITD research, which are similarly broad and will probably take a lifetime to master. These are communication, systems thinking, strategic planning and continuous learning, facilitating communication in a team, building bridges between disciplines, sectors and social groups, and teamwork and leadership.
It is clear that these guidelines alone will not teach anyone these competences. The point of the list is to draw attention to the importance of these skills and encourage you to keep this knowledge in mind.
However, we can contribute to learning to some extent. Below you will find methods, (video) lectures or courses that support the listed skills.
🧑🎓 Future leader development programme
📄 General recommendations for organising workshops
📄 Skills and mindset required for TD research
🎞️ Openness, active listening and interest in another perspective
🎞️ Facilitation as a strategic tool to accelerate innovation
🛠️ What does collaboration add? A method for personalising collaboration value in meetings
🛠️ Soft systems methodology for structuring complex problems in heterogeneous groups
🛠️ Guides to systems thinking
🛠️ Design thinking: a strategy for collaborative problem solving
🛠️ Questions to help non-experts open up and critique expert opinions
There are three aspects of applying for funding for ITD research that may differ from disciplinary research: first, the timeframe; second, who to involve (who gets paid?); and third, the kind of results that can be promised.
ITD research is becoming increasingly common, so mainstream science funders are also suitable for applying for funding.
📝 Estonian Research Council instruments
📝 Missions of the European Union
📝 ‘Horizon Europe’ programme application rounds
📝 European Research Council (ERC) research grants (Starting Grant, Consolidator Grant, Advanced Grant)
📝 Marie Skłodowska-Curie research grant
📝 European Research Council (ERC) synergy grant
ITD researchers may need to involve public sector organisations or businesses interested in the topic in addition to or instead of general research funders.
At the University of Tartu, the Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation coordinates research and development cooperation between researchers and entrepreneurs. The University of Tartu Grant Office provides support for public sector cooperation.
First, ITD research requires more time than regular research. In meetings, in addition to bouncing ideas around, agreeing on the process and getting an overview of what has been done previously, time must be deliberately devoted to opening up different points of view, building trust, continuously learning from each other, and self-analysis.
For this, you will find the tools in the subsections Starting the research and During the project. The subsection Starting the research also contains advice on the preparatory work that needs to be done before the start of the research project in addition to writing the application.
Second, it may be necessary to involve facilitators who create bridges between partners (see the subsection ‘Required skills’). This should be taken into account when budgeting.
Third, ways must be found to ensure that weaker partners are not excluded from the circle of beneficiaries, for example, if some members of the working group are affected by the problem. Collaboration cannot mean that only researchers receive payment for their work. For example, an implementing partner should not only provide a test platform, but their labour and material costs should also be covered.
Fourth, we recommend leaving the results and promises at least partially open, if possible, to make room for genuinely novel solutions (see the chapter At the end of the project).
📄 Ten recommendations for ITD research project applicants
Setting up a research team and defining a research task is a kind of chicken and egg situation. How can you create a research team when the research question is not yet fully developed? How can you define the research task when the composition of the research team is not fully clear?
In these guidelines, we will solve the matter as follows: the problem (and often the initial research task, sometimes also the outline of the research question) exists before either of these steps. So the first step is to identify the problem.
Second, a research team needs to be formed. In the case of ID research, this will consist of representatives from different scientific fields, and in the case of TD research, partners from outside the research institution who can play a role in solving the problem will also be added.
Third, possible power relations (see below) need to be analysed to clarify how they may affect the process going forward.
Fourth, more specific research tasks and questions can be set, taking into account the interests of all members of the research team.
Figure 5 illustrates these four steps.
Figure 5. Four steps to starting a research project
It is inevitable that meetings and brainstorming sessions will be needed before the project becomes formal and these require more time than disciplinary research. You will also need to be prepared for uncomfortable questions and conversations in order to truly understand yourself and others.
Creating an ITD research team could start by listing the scientific fields that are relevant to the identified problem. This can also be the end of the process if the goal is not to involve non-academic partners.
First, you need to think about how you can use your existing knowledge and skills to solve the problem.
Then, we recommend finding gaps that others could help fill. This could mean inviting representatives from other scientific fields to the project to create a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and add missing skills. Therefore, you should identify the scientific fields that are already addressing the problem in question.
You can get an overview of the research conducted at the University of Tartu by visiting the University of Tartu Research Dashboard.
Missing skills are somewhat more difficult, as they may only become apparent during the research (see the toolbox for a method to identify group dynamics). Gaps can arise, for example, when collecting or analysing data, disseminating research results and presenting the problem and solution from the perspective of different disciplines in a way that appeals to scientific communities.
Next, you can move on to external partners if that is the goal.
When involving them, the goal should be to get on board those who are most affected by the problem, whose voices are least heard, and for whom the project’s possible solution is intended. These are, for example, future users of a medication or people who would have to rearrange their lives based on the concept of a 15-minute city.
Involving affected individuals increases the impact of the work done and can bring completely new perspectives that would not otherwise come to mind within the framework of research.
However, it should also be taken into account that not all those affected may be interested in cooperation. Similarly, participation may be hindered by the psychological or physical abilities of these people. Therefore, alternatives must be considered, such as finding representatives or advocates who are familiar with their issues and willing to contribute to the project.
Third, partners are needed who have the power and interest to disseminate and implement the results or even financially support the project. In applied projects, the so-called representative of the client often plays this role while also being a partner.
Finally, we recommend a thorough identification of stakeholders (we use the terms stakeholders and participants synonymously here) to identify all affected parties.
If engagement is not only carried out by the project manager but also involves contacts from other team members, attention should be paid to who is engaging whom and how this may affect the future. Will the engager become an important intermediary in the future and will this in turn mean additional tasks for them?
In the toolbox, you will find guidelines for identifying stakeholders (based on different functions), questions for finding interested and affected stakeholders, an example from the field of sustainability, and reflections on the topic of engagement and co-creation from participants in the ‘Horizon Europe’ funding programme.
We recommend visualising the identified stakeholders (including academics) on the axes of interest and influence as well as capacity and capital. This makes it easier to consider alternatives and find balance points.
📄 Principles of intersectionality (the combination of characteristics of different actors that affect their relationships with others, amplifying their privilege or vulnerability)
🛠️ Stakeholder engagement based on function (needs of different project phases) and group dynamics (taking into account already involved team members)
🛠️ Questions to identify interested and affected stakeholders
🛠️ Matrix to assess when to involve different stakeholders in a project
🛠 Interest and influence matrix
📄 Zingraff-Hamed, A., Hüesker, F., Lupp, G., Begg, C., Huang, J., Oen, A., Vojinovic, Z., Kuhlicke, C., & Pauleit, S. (2020). Stakeholder mapping to co-create nature-based solutions: who is on board? Sustainability, 12(20), 8625.
📄 Lieu, J., Martinez-Reyes, A., Groome, P., Mangalagiu, D., Pearce, B. J., Witajewska-Baltvilka, B., & Møller, R.-E. D. (2023). Inclusive stakeholder engagement for equitable knowledge co-production: Insights from the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme in climate change research. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 32(1), 138–143.
Stakeholder engagement based on function (needs of different project phases) and group dynamics (taking into account already involved team members)
At this stage, it is worth considering the extent to which mutual training is needed to create common understandings or build bridges between understandings. Preliminary work reduces the burden later.
Once the potential members of the research team are known, we recommend analysing the power relations.
Involving a variety of stakeholders – both less and more vulnerable – brings with it a web of power, capabilities and opportunities as well as a range of ethical considerations for research. Mapping these dynamics anticipates tensions and ensures that every member of the research team has a voice.
Tackling power imbalances may feel uncomfortable, but there are resources and guidelines to address these challenges.
The first resource cited provides an overview of power and its impact on collaboration. The next two are tools for identifying power relations.
📄 Just Associates. (2006). Making Change Happen: POWER. Concepts for Revisioning Power for Justice, Equality and Peace.
🛠️ PowerCube (guidelines for organising a power workshop, analysing power relations and designing strategies based on power relations)
🛠️ Power Awareness Tool. Multi-step tool for identifying and assessing power relations)
Since ITD research is interactive (partners from different backgrounds collaborate) and fluid (people can join and leave during the project), it is worth paying constant attention to power relations and their changes.
The question of whether teams trust their leaders should not be avoided. If there is reason to believe that the answer to this question is no, the problem should be tackled and, if necessary, the roles reversed. You can find tools for resolving conflicts and having difficult conversations in the ‘During the project’ subsection.
During the first meetings of a new research team, we recommend consciously dedicating time to getting to know each other's disciplinary perspectives. Better knowledge of the background and understandings of the members of the working group reduces later situations of misunderstanding, but also creates a much-needed resource called trust.
Although such agenda items may sound excessive to an Estonian researcher juggling multiple tasks and forced by circumstance to optimise activities, these steps save time in the long run. In a team where there is trust and mutual understanding, it is easier to discuss disagreements and the work flows more smoothly.
Sometimes the differences are at the level of micro-options, but they are very important. For example, social scientists compile a list of authors of a publication on the subjects of the fairy tale of pulling a turnip out of the ground: the key players are at the top. The ‘mouse’ at the end of the list is not the leader of the research team! For natural scientists, however, the same list is formed akin to a formation of geese: the ‘mother goose’ and ‘father goose’ or first and last authors (in some places only the last!) are the key contributors, while the ‘goslings’ in the middle have made lesser contributions. This seems like a trivial matter, but it can turn into a vicious feud if not clarified in time.
We recommend starting to find common ground and differences by formulating your own professional tacit knowledge and practices. This can be challenging, as much of it might feel self-evident and difficult to put into words. Once this step is completed, the team can move on to exploring common and different understandings.
To better understand yourself and others, you can use a questionnaire developed by the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative community in the US. The questions focus on the researcher's motivation, applied methods, validation of results, research objects, values and levels of generalisation of research.
In the toolbox, you will find, first, tools that help build trust; second, questions to get to know the ‘background’ of your own research field; and third, tools to identify and open up the different perspectives of group members.
🛠️ Building trust and opening up the perspectives of research team members
🎲‘COLLAB ID’ game to encourage ITD research and communication
🛠️ What kind of researcher are you? 34 questions that everyone should answer for themselves and then discuss together
🛠️ A four-step model for ID research, in which the first step is developing your own understanding of the scientific field (disciplinary grounding)
🛠️ Method for identifying different understandings
🛠️ Method for identifying common understandings
🛠️ Method for identifying common understandings, which also helps to identify who could work together
🛠️ Tool for exploring different perspectives
Research must also be done before arriving at a research task and/or question. Here, too, it is necessary to reach a common approach that takes into account all participants.
You could start by listing the assumptions of all members of the research team. What are the expectations for the results and process? How is the problem understood? What is considered a solution? Once these issues have been clearly discussed, red crosses can be drawn where perceptions and expectations diverge.
Answering such questions is on the one hand laborious but on the other hand very valuable because without setting common research questions, an ITD working group cannot really exist. It also increases the group's sense of unity in the process. It also allows you to step outside your usual thinking pattern and make sure that the research task is in line with the societal needs related to the problem.
The first method mentioned below reveals hidden and habitual ways of thinking that tend to guide the formulation of research questions. The result of the method is three versions of the same research question. They focus on different types of knowledge: the way things are; the way things should be; and how to get from where we are to where we want to be.
This approach forces the team to think together about the problem and possible solutions, which in turn brings out different (disciplinary) perspectives. The result is research questions that are relevant to both societal needs and the research team’s interests.
First, you will find an article in the toolbox drawer that introduces a heuristic framework for joint problem identification. Next, you will find a number of methods (the first of which we described above) that help in setting the research task.
📄 Pearce, B. J., & Ejderyan, O. (2020). Joint problem framing as reflexive practice: Honing a transdisciplinary skill. Sustainability Science, 15(3), 683–698.
🛠️ Tool for visualising the causes and consequences of complex problems. Helps to better understand the problem and thus support the formulation of research questions
🛠️ A method to consider different (societal) needs when posing research questions in order to reduce your own bias
🛠️ A method for visualising direct and indirect assumptions and perceptions
🛠️ An iterative method to clarify whether and how the selected actions lead to the expected change
The basis for creating working groups or packages should primarily be – as in disciplinary research – an interest in the research questions as well as knowledge that is compatible with the tasks. It is also necessary to ensure that diverse understandings are represented.
In this toolbox, you will find methods to help you divide your research group into working groups.
🛠️ A tool to visualise how to create working groups based on knowledge, interests and background
🎲 A role-playing game to identify the role of different members of the research team in answering the research questions
🛠️ A method for grouping different phenomena related to a research problem
ITD research is inherently iterative: you constantly have to go back several steps to make sure that everyone is still on the same track. If this is not the case, you have to relearn where the other members of the project are.
This means that not all differences will surface at the beginning of the project. During the project, the toolbox of disciplinary perspectives may be needed again, for example, to re-identify different and shared understandings. Similarly, conflicts are inevitable, regardless of the amount of groundwork done.
Conscious preparation allows you to prevent deeper disagreements (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Possible obstacles
First, it is important to remember that when doing ITD research, you should never assume that others will fully and equally understand you. Background, frameworks, models and abbreviations must be presented and explained in a way that encourages thought. Therefore, you have to make a conscious effort to teach others your ‘language’ and you have to try to learn the ‘language’ of others. It should be assumed that others do not think the same way as you do.
As more shared beliefs emerge as the project progresses, the approach can be adjusted, but in the beginning, there should usually be more emphasis on introduction and simplification, even if it seems ‘unscientific’. The tools provided in the ‘Starting research’ subsection explain different points of view and allow you to understand yourself and others.
Part of the meetings could be an informed explanation of new and different views and understandings. The following tools can help with this:
🛠️ A method that can be used to connect approaches to the same problem or phenomenon from different scientific disciplines
🛠️ A method to help team members think about the problem from different viewpoints
🎲 A metaphor creation game that supports the emergence of a new kind of understanding
Second, during the collaboration, you need to remind yourself again and again that you promised to be open-minded and interested. For example, you can think of meetings as travelling: you look with curiosity at what others do, value and think, and at the same time you reflect on your own actions, values and thought patterns.
It is also important that ITD collaboration itself is genuinely collaborative and not just involvement. This means that, as the project progresses, it is important to make sure that the people affected by the problem are not objects of research or advisors, but equal partners who need to be given space and a voice. Collaboration between research partners is of course equally important.
In order to reach new knowledge, it is necessary to constantly make sure that all the disciplines involved have the opportunity and capacity to shape the research process.
You will find three guides in the toolbox.
The first is a comprehensive and science-based guide to ID research, which covers the formation of a working group, creating trust and a common vision, recognition, public dissemination of results and communication with each other.
The second guide is based on interviews and focus group discussions with the Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity and focuses on collaboration between researchers and practitioners.
Lastly, the MIT Governance Lab guide is useful for difficult conversations in researcher-practitioner collaboration.
📄 Bennett, L. M., & Gadlin, H. (2012). Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice.
📄 AFSEE. (2021). Academic Practitioner Collaborations to address inequalities – How to make it work.
📄 Lipovsek, V., & Zomer A. (2019). How to have difficult conversations? A practical guide for academic-practitioner research collaborations.
🛠️ Method for organising discussions with different stakeholders
Since different beliefs are an integral part of ITD research, it is certain that there will be obstacles and conflicts that need to be overcome. The biggest of these is likely that openness must be constantly addressed throughout the process to create and maintain space for different perspectives.
In the toolbox, you will find an article on how to make ITD research tensions work to your advantage and methods that iteratively identify obstacles and conflicts at different stages of the project.
📄 Clarke, L. & Freeth, R. (2019). Embracing tension for energy and creativity in interdisciplinary research.
🛠️ A method to identify obstacles, synergies, challenges and possible solutions
🛠️ A method to surface possible fears, tensions and concerns
At the end of the project, the focus is on results and making up for lost time. When planning the results, we recommend looking beyond just academic outputs because the contribution of diverse teams can be much broader and more practical. This is achieved by involving all participants in setting the research task (see ‘Starting research’) and planning the results.
A review article based on the results of 101 TD projects, showing that TD research projects in developed countries tend to focus exclusively on academic output and knowledge creation.
📄 Pärli, R., Fischer, M., & Lieberherr, E. (2022). What are the effects of transdisciplinary research projects in the global North and South? A comparative analysis. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100180.
Like the research task, the desired results must be planned together with all members of the working group. It is important that everyone involved gains something. Therefore, a balance must be maintained between traditional research outputs and applied results.
However, it should not be forgotten that what is measurable may not be the most important. The process itself is also part of the outcome.
In the toolbox, you will find methods for planning changes and results.
🛠️ Achievement planning method, suitable for use at the beginning of or during the project
🛠️ A tool to collectively identify potential outcomes and related societal changes. Suitable for use at the start of a project
🛠️ A qualitative method to gain an overview of the most important final results for partners. Suitable for use during the project or at the end
At the end of the project, we recommend taking time to evaluate what has changed (including within yourself), what went well, what you can learn from and where to go next.
In the toolbox, you will find methods that are well suited for project summarisation.
🛠️ A method to retrospectively identify key moments in the life of a project
🛠️ A method to build bridges between ITD research and results and ‘real life’.
🛠️ A haiku-based method for collecting reflections
🛠️ A method to tie the ends together. Suitable for both the end of each stage of the project as well as the very last workshop/meeting
Guidelines compiled by:
Anna-Kati Pahker, anna-kati.pahker@ut.ee
Expanded and commented on by:
Kristiina Tambets, Margit Keller, Mihkel Solvak, Maie Kiisel, Piret Ehrenpreis
