Reasoning by analogy and the transdisciplinarian’s circle: on the problem of knowledge transfer across cases in transdisciplinary research

Abstract

In their 2018 paper, Carolina Adler, Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Thomas Breu, Urs Wiesmann, and Christian Pohl propose that transferability of knowledge across cases in transdisciplinary research should be thought of in terms of arguments by analogy. We aim to advance this discussion about transferability by examining it in the light of recent ideas about knowledge transfer, extrapolation, and external validity in the philosophy of science. We problematise Adler et al.’s proposal by identifying the ‘transdisciplinarian’s circle’, due to which even knowledge that could be of use in other projects may be identified too late for efficient knowledge transfer to take place. We then suggest that Steel’s ideas on overcoming the ‘extrapolator’s circle’ can serve as a source of inspiration for addressing the issue of the transdisciplinarian’s circle.

Working with the tensions of transdisciplinary research: a review and agenda for the future of knowledge co-production in the Anthropocene

“…What distinguishes inter and transdisciplinary studies from multidisciplinary studies is that synthesizing and interpreting complex data from multiple scales and disciplines happens as research is formulated and undertaken, rather than as an afterthought (Lacy et al, 2013). The more challenging component for transdisciplinarians is translating results from one case to another, and building strong arguments by analogy for this are key (Eigi-Watkin & Koskinen, 2023). Working across sectors can also mean continuity of a project beyond the conventional period that research is funded, with some actors being better positioned to continue implementation (Hölsgens et al, 2023).…”

“…Brandt et al (2013),Boon et al (2014),Brandt et al (2013),Eigi-Watkin and Koskinen (2023),Guggenheim (2006),Harris and Lyon (2013),Hölsgens et al (2023), Houser et al (2021), Holzer et al (2019,Kok et al (2021),Lux et al (2019),Polk (2015),Schmidt and Pröpper (2017) Evaluating the research practice Allocating time and resources for reflecting about the process Establish systems of co-reflection and learning from the start, preferably face-to-face Allow time and space for co-reflection Develop adaptive strategies and be flexible Feed into design of future projects and funding programsGaziulusoy et al (2016), Holzer et al (2018,Luks and Siebenhüner (2007),Plummer et al (2022),Podesta et al (2013), Radinger-Peer et al ( 2022,Roux et al (2010),Scholz and Steiner (2015b) …”

How is who: evidence as clues for action in participatory sustainability science and public health research

“…Second, they are also collaborative, because they engage in knowledge co-production processes towards the empowerment of those actors (Freudenberg & Tsui, 2014 ; Wyborn et al, 2019 ). Philosophers of science have been increasingly engaging with forms of participatory and collaborative research both in sustainability and health contexts (Eigi-Watkin & Koskinen, 2023 ; Evans & Potochnik, 2020 ; Ludwig & El-Hani, 2020 ; Ludwig et al, 2021 ). Further, examples such as the Multiple Evidence Base approach in sustainability science (MEB in Box 1) or Community Based Participatory Research in public health (CBPR in Box 2) have attracted increasing attention because of their ability to develop evidence about the complexity of sustainability and health problems (Menatti et al, 2022 ) as well as about the appropriateness and meaningfulness of interventions (Leask et al, 2019 ; Reed & Meagher, 2019 ).…”