Explore the vast range of titles available.

The idea that universities should become entrepreneurial, commercialized, private commodities or should serve politicians and governmental agencies has been promoted by the university–industry–government relationship-based Triple Helix approach and is reality in many places. In contrast, a reemphasis on universities serving the public good has been demanded by proponents of transdisciplinary sustainability research. To better understand the tensions between public-good–oriented approaches of transdisciplinarity and entrepreneurial, market-oriented Triple Helix and third-mission approaches of science—practice collaboration, this paper takes a closer look at the history of universities’ roles and functions. We then elucidate the practice of transdisciplinary processes and discuss the “science for and with society” approach of transdisciplinary sustainable transitioning. We argue that transdisciplinarity for producing groundbreaking sociotechnical solutions has to serve (a) the public good and (b) calls for independence, academic freedom, institutionalization, and proper funding schemes. Third-mission conceptions that follow the commercialization/capitalization of scientific knowledge are in conflict with the conception of science and of transdisciplinarity serving sustainable transitioning. The development of groundbreaking ideas for sustainable transitions must acknowledge the complexity and contextualization of real-world settings. Therefore, collaboration between practice and transdisciplinarity calls for the input and cooperation of authentic practitioners, i.e., the experts of practice and real wold complexity. The challenge of transdisciplinarity is to properly relate the fundamental expertise of practice to validated academic rigor. This implies that transdisciplinary research is a critical element of the university’s research mission.

This paper discusses the role normative aspects play in different approaches of science–practice collaboration, in particular as action research, (Mode 2) Transdisciplinarity (Td), Transition Management (TM), and Transformative Science (TSc). We elaborate on the different roles that scientists in these processes play. They work as facilitators (or contribute to a facilitated Td process), as activists (i.e., activist researchers) in TM projects, and as catalysts in TSc. Td processes develop socially robust solutions for sustainable transitioning and impacts on the science system through mutual learning and by integrating epistemics (i.e., ways of knowing) from science and practice and focusing on the empowerment of stakeholders. Science is viewed as a public good aiming to serve all key stakeholders. Researchers involved in TM projects strive to influence ongoing transition processes by actively engaging and participating in them, including lobbying for and empowering transformative changes toward sustainability based upon the researchers’ own analyses and world views. The TSc approach takes a catalyst perspective of the scientist’s role in inducing processes of strategic (societal) transition when including certain stakeholder groups. The paper focuses on what roles normative aspects play in the different approaches and new societal demands imposed on science and universities. Based on this, we conclude that a new order of universities, public knowledge institutions, and boundary institutions is forthcoming.

Transdisciplinarity integrates or relates different epistemics from science and practice (Mode 2 transdisciplinarity) or from branches of disciplines if interdisciplinary integration is impossible (Mode 1 transdisciplinarity). The paper explains, based on an analysis of the historical development of the Mode 2 transdisciplinarity concept, how transdisciplinary processes link interdisciplinary applied research and multi-stakeholder discourses by facilitating methods. We elaborate on what type of problems may be managed using what knowledge, how this might be accomplished, what types of objectives are desired, and by what organizational means. Thus the paper presents ontology, epistemology, methodology, functionality, and organization of an ideal type of transdisciplinary process. Socially robust orientations are the expected outcomes of this process. These orientations provide science-based, state-of-the-art, socially accepted options of solutions which acknowledge uncertainties and the incompleteness of different forms of epistemics (i.e., of knowing or thought), in particular within the sustainable transitioning of complex real-world problems.

This paper builds on the theoretical foundation outlined in Part I (‘The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations’) which is included in the same special feature. Mode 2 transdisciplinarity processes are characterized as processes that relate or integrate problem-oriented interdisciplinary research with knowledge generated in a multi-stakeholder approach with the objective to develop socially robust orientations, for instance, on sustainable transitioning. In practice, transdisciplinary processes may have different functions (i.e., societal capacity building, consensus building, analytic mediation, and legitimization). Practitioners and scientists may follow different interests. And we may distinguish between different types of knowledge integration (including different perspectives, modes of thoughts or cultures). Thus, the reality of transdisciplinarity processes may become a very complex and ambitious venture whose multiple objectives are difficult to realize in practice. This paper reviews the existing challenges, obstacles, and constraints of transdisciplinary processes. This review refers to 41 mid- and large-scale transdisciplinary studies run by members of the ITdNet at seven universities on sustainable transitions of urban and regional systems, organizations, and policy processes. A comprehensive table can be used as a checklist for identifying and coping with constraints and obstacles of transdisciplinary processes in practice. The discussion identifies the main challenges for the future development of transdisciplinarity’s theory and practice, including linking Mode 1 transdisciplinarity (i.e., the relating of disciplinary causation for which no interdisciplinarity is possible by merging concepts and methods) and Mode 2 transdisciplinarity, which targets sustainable knowledge and action for system transitioning.

The complexity and importance of environmental, societal, and other challenges require new forms of science and practice collaboration. We first describe the complementarity of method-driven, theory-based, and (to the extent possible) validated scientific knowledge in contrast to real-world, action-based, and contextualized experimental knowledge. We argue that a thorough integration of these two modes of knowing is necessary for developing ground-breaking innovations and transitions for sustainable development. To reorganize types of science–practice collaborations, we extend Stokes’s Pasteur’s quadrant with its dimensions for the relevance of (i) (generalized) fundamental knowledge and (ii) applications when introducing (iii) process ownership, i.e., who controls the science–practice collaboration process. Process ownership is a kind of umbrella variable which comprises leadership (with the inflexion point of equal footing or co-leadership) and mutuality (this is needed for knowledge integration and developing socially robust orientations) which are unique selling points of transdisciplinarity. The extreme positions of process ownership are applied research (science takes control) and consulting (practice takes process ownership). Ideal transdisciplinary processes include authentic co-definition, co-representation, co-design, and co-leadership of science and practice. We discuss and grade fifteen approaches on science–practice collaboration along the process ownership scale and reflect on the challenges to make transdisciplinarity real.

This paper identifies and discusses the benefits, threats, and vulnerabilities related to the digital revolution. It aims to motivate research and its funding regarding digital threats and vulnerabilities related, in particular, to anticipating unintended, undesirable rebound effects, tipping points, critically fast evolutionary change rates, trade-offs, etc. A brief analysis of the history of the mind and technology reveals slow technological development over tens of thousands of years (including the invention of a place-value digital number system). Then, a small series of groundbreaking ideas (e.g., binary logic, Shannon’s symbolic analysis of relay and switching circuits, architectures of computing) enabled the industry-driven invention of programmable computing machines. Ultimately, the mastery of electron and semiconductor physics allowed for economical and seemingly unlimited storage capacity that made digital tools available to all domains of society. Based on the historical analysis, a coupled human-environment systems perspective (that includes a hierarchy assumption ranging from the human cell to the human species) enables the identification of several potential challenges to society and science. First, digital nano-engineering promotes genetic modifications (i.e., directed evolution), and synthetic biology enables a new level of the appropriation of nature. The understanding of cell-based biocomputers may call for new forms of logic. These and other challenges require thorough sustainability research in order to anticipate major changes on all levels of human systems. Second, the human individual is exposed to new forms of vulnerability. In particular, the potential epigenetic effects resulting from the excessive use of digital information of historically unknown speed, density, and contents and the loss of (the Western common-law right to) privacy resulting from big data (whose ownership is often unknown) should become subjects of research. Third, digital technologies are responsible for rapid changes in all social and economic structures. The paper suggests that thorough, discipline-based interdisciplinary research is needed in order to develop basic knowledge for creating and managing resilient relationships between human systems and their digital environments.

The Digital Revolution is inducing major threats to many types of human systems. We present the SVIDT method (a Strengths, Vulnerability, and Intervention Assessment related to Digital Threats) for managing the vulnerabilities of human systems with respect to digital threats and changes. The method first performs a multilevel system–actor analysis for assessing vulnerabilities and strengths with respect to digital threats. Then, the method identifies threat scenarios that may become real. By constructing, evaluating, and launching interventions against all identified digital threats and their critical negative outcomes, the resilience of a specific human system can be improved. The evaluation of interventions is done when strengthening the adaptive capacity, i.e., a system’s capability to cope with negative outcomes that may take place in the future. The SVIDT method is embedded in the framework of coupled human–environment systems, the theory of risk and vulnerability assessment, types of adaptation (assimilation vs. accommodation), and a comprehensive sustainability evaluation. The SVIDT method is exemplarily applied to an enterprise (i.e., a Swiss casino) for which online gaming has become an essential digital-business field. The discussion reflects on the specifics of digital threats and discusses both the potential benefits and limitations of the SVIDT method.

Issue Title: Special Feature: The Reality of Transdisciplinary Processes

This paper addresses the need for effective and fair codes of conduct for public-good-oriented transdisciplinary processes. These processes are characterized by the production of socially robust orientations (SoROs) through mutual learning and developing better action strategies by merging knowledge from practice and science. We argue that transdisciplinary processes should be governed by an appropriate social rule system that comprises codes of conduct for collaboration (CCC) in transdisciplinary discourses. In our view, participants in a transdisciplinary process must (1) follow rules of mutuality between science and practice (accepting the otherness of the other) and (2) enable the use and integration of knowledge from science and practice (e.g., through responsibility and/or co-leadership at all levels of a project). This requires (3) a protected discourse arena similar to an expanded Chatham House Rule that facilitates the generation of groundbreaking, novel ideas for sustainable transition. In transdisciplinary processes, CCC are based on these three perspectives and can be explicitly introduced yet require cultural and situational adaptations. Many aspects of transdisciplinary processes, such as legal status (e.g., who owns the data generated, whether it is a group or formal organization), are often unclear and need further investigation.