Thomas Jahn

Bio: Thomas Jahn is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Transdisciplinarity. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 42 citations.

Transdisciplinarity in the Practice of Research

Abstract: Introduction The term ‘transdisciplinarity’ was first used in a way similar to today’s meaning by Erich Jantsch (1972), a physicist and early complexity researcher, at an OECD conference in 1970 in Nice. For Jantsch the term referred to the targeted coordination of a group of disciplines and inter-disciplines, which together are involved in a complex scientific system, and which have a common purpose, with this coordination based on a general system of axioms that are considered binding on all concerned. Which system of axioms should serve as the basis for such a coordinated effort was not explained by Jantsch. Despite this conceptual lack of clarity the term was successful, leading to discussions and debates within the philosophy and sociology of science concerning possible different forms of discipline-spanning scientific practice. A milestone in the German debate was reached at a symposium in the Center for Interdisciplinary Research, Bielefeld (Kocka 1987). There the attempt was made to link inter-and transdisciplinarity to ‘disciplinarity’ in order to reduce conceptual ambiguity. To this end the psychologist Heinz Heckhausen proposed drawing a distinction between ‘academic subjects’ and ‘disciplines.’ By ‘academic subject’ he understood an organizational unit combining teaching and research (e.g., a ‘professorship’), while ‘disciplinarity’ refers to a “theoretical level of integration” (Heckhausen 1987). The philosopher Juergen Mittelstraß then moved the discussion further by also linking transdisciplinarity to disciplinarity, while at the same time relating it to “problems that technological cultures, i.e., modern industrial societies, have in great numbers (Mittelstraß 1987: 154). Some years later he went on to define ‘transdisciplinarity’ as a form of research practice that “has freed itself from disciplinary boundaries, defining and solving its problems independently of any discipline (Mittelstraß 1998: 44).

Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges

Abstract: There is emerging agreement that sustainability challenges require new ways of knowledge production and decision-making. One key aspect of sustainability science, therefore, is the involvement of actors from outside academia into the research process in order to integrate the best available knowledge, reconcile values and preferences, as well as create ownership for problems and solution options. Transdisciplinary, community-based, interactive, or participatory research approaches are often suggested as appropriate means to meet both the requirements posed by real-world problems as well as the goals of sustainability science as a transformational scientific field. Dispersed literature on these approaches and a variety of empirical projects applying them make it difficult for interested researchers and practitioners to review and become familiar with key components and design principles of how to do transdisciplinary sustainability research. Starting from a conceptual model of an ideal–typical transdisciplinary research process, this article synthesizes and structures such a set of principles from various strands of the literature and empirical experiences. We then elaborate on them, looking at challenges and some coping strategies as experienced in transdisciplinary sustainability projects in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia. The article concludes with future research needed in order to further enhance the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research.

Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1

Abstract: Purpose Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definitionofa common scientificparadigminwhich integrationand interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to sustainability assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for sustainability assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive sustainability assessment. Methods The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on sustainability assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those

Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice

Abstract: Calls for society to ‘reconnect with nature’ are commonplace in the scientific literature and popular environmental discourse. However, the expression is often used haphazardly without the clarity of the process involved, the practical outcomes desired, and/or the relevance to conservation. This interdisciplinary review finds that the Western disconnect from nature is central to the convergent social-ecological crises and is primarily a problem in consciousness. Connectedness with nature (CWN) is therefore defined as a stable state of consciousness comprising symbiotic cognitive, affective, and experiential traits that reflect, through consistent attitudes and behaviors, a sustained awareness of the interrelatedness between one’s self and the rest of nature. CWN sits on a continuum comprising information about nature and experience in nature but is differentiated as a more holistic process for realizing transformative outcomes that serve oneself and their community. Various instruments are available to measure the CWN construct, although their cross-cultural transferability is unclear. Multiple benefits of CWN linked to physical and psychological well-being have been identified and CWN is distinct in that it supports happiness and more purposeful, fulfilling, and meaningful lives. CWN has been found as a reliable predictor and motivation for environmentally responsible behavior (ERB). CWN may benefit conservation discourse by providing: a more compelling language; hope and buffering frustration in the face of environmental crises; a more enduring motivation for ERB; and an accepted avenue for tackling ‘fuzzy’ concepts often avoided in conservation. Bolstered by interdisciplinary collaborations and action-oriented education, CWN presents itself as a radical but necessary prerequisite for realizing desired conservation and environmental behavior outcomes.

Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science—A critical view

Abstract: Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration – for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science − the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research.