Over the past decades, we have witnessed calls for greater transdisciplinary engagement between scientific and societal actors to develop more robust answers to complex societal challenges. Although there seems to be agreement that these approaches might nurture innovations of a new kind, we know little regarding the research practices, their potential, and the limitations. To fill this gap, this article investigates a funding scheme in the area of transdisciplinary sustainability research. It offers a detailed analysis of the imaginaries and expectations on which the funding scheme rests and how researchers actually practice transdisciplinarity within the respective projects. Identifying three ideal typical models of science–society relations at work, attention is paid to how, where, and when societal and scientific arenas get (dis-)entangled. This article discusses (1) the tensions between classical academic values and efforts to open research to society, (2) the prevailing power structures that make societal participation challenging, (3) the importance of place and technopolitical cultures, and (4) how temporal project structures impede more radical openings to new ways of knowledge production. We finally emphasize that transdisciplinary knowledge production can only become a serious option for addressing societal challenges if broader changes are made to the knowledge regimes in place.
AkrichMadeleine. 1992. “The De-scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society, edited by BijkerWiebe E.LawJohn, 205–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Bureau of European Policy Advisors (BEPA). 2011. Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union. Luxembourg: European Communities.
3.
CallonMichel. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay.” In Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? edited by LawJohn, 196–233. London, UK: Routledge/Kegan Paul.
4.
CallonMichelLascoumesPierreBartheYannick. 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
ClarkeAdele E.2005. Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
DastonLorraine. 1995. “The Moral Economy of Science.” Osiris10:3–24.
7.
EpsteinSteven. 1996. Impure Science. Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
EtzkowitzHenryLeydesdorffLoet. 2000. “The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations.” Research Policy29 (2): 109–23.
9.
FeltUlrike. 2015. “Keeping Technologies Out: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Formation if Austria’s Technopolitical Identity.” In Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, edited by JasanoffSheilaKimSang-Hyun, 103–25. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
10.
FeltUlrikeFochlerMaximilianWinklerPeter. 2010. “Coming to Terms with Biomedical Technologies in Different Technopolitical Cultures: A Comparative Analysis of Focus Groups on Organ Transplantation and Genetic Testing in Austria, France, and the Netherlands.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (4): 525–53.
11.
FeltUlrikeIgelsboeckJudithSchikowitzAndreaVoelkerThomas. 2012. “Challenging Participation in Sustainability Research.” DEMESCI-International Journal of Deliberative Mechanisms in Science1 (1): 4–34.
12.
FeltUlrikeIgelsboeckJudithSchikowitzAndreaVoelkerThomas. 2013a. “Growing into What? The (Un-) disciplined Socialisation of Early Stage Researchers in Transdisciplinary Research.” Higher Education65 (4): 511–24.
13.
FeltUlrikeBarbenDanielIrwinAlanJolyPierre-BenoîtRipArieStirlingAndrewStöckelováTeresa. 2013b. “Science in Society: Caring for Our Futures in Turbulent Times.” Policy Briefing 50, European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, France.
14.
FeltUlrikeWynneBrian. 2007. “Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously.” Report to the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
15.
FujimuraJoan H.1987. “Constructing ‘Do-able’ Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment.” Social Studies of Science17 (2): 257–93.
16.
FuntowiczSilvio O.RavetzJerome. 1993. “Science for the Post-normal Age.” Futures25 (7): 739–57.
17.
GalisonPeter. 1999. “Trading Zone. Coordinating Action and Belief.” In The Science Studies Reader, edited by BiagioliM., 137–60. London, UK: Routledge.
18.
GibbonsMichaelLimogesCamilleNowotnyHelgaSchwartzmanSimonScottPeterTrowMartin. 1994. New Production of Knowledge: Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
GierynThomas F.2000. “A Space for Place in Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology26:463–96.
20.
GodinBenoît. 2006. “The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework.” Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (6): 639–67.
21.
HackettEdward J.RhotenDiana R.. 2009. “The Snowbird Charrette: Integrative Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Environmental Research Design.” Minerva47 (4): 407–40.
22.
HesselsLaurens K.van LenteHarro. 2008. “Re-thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda.” Research Policy37 (4): 740–60.
23.
JasanoffSheila. 2004. States of Knowledge. The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London, UK: Routledge.
24.
JasanoffSheila. 2005. Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
JasanoffSheilaKimSang-Hyun. 2009. “Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the U.S. and South Korea.” Minerva47 (2): 119–46.
26.
Knorr-CetinaKarin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
27.
Knorr-CetinaKarin. 2001. “Viskurse der Physik.” In Mit dem Auge Denken. Strategien der Sichtbarmachung in wissenschaftlichen und virtuellen Welten, edited by HeintzBettinaHuberJörg, 305–20. Zürich, Switzerland: Ed. Voldemeer.
28.
LamontMichèle. 2012. “Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation.” Annual Review of Sociology38 (1): 201–221.
29.
LatourBruno. 2004. “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry30 (2): 225–48.
30.
LawJohn. 1994. Organizing Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
MarresNoortje. 2007. “The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy.” Social Studies of Science37 (5): 759–80.
32.
MeyerMorgan. 2010. “The Rise of the Knowledge Broker.” Science Communication32 (1): 118–27.
NowotnyHelgaScottPeterGibbonsMichael. 2001. Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
35.
StilgoeJackOwenRichardMacnaghtenPhil. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy42 (9): 1568–80.
36.
StirlingAndrew. 2006. “Precaution, Foresight and Sustainability. Reflection and Reflexivity in the Governance of Technology.” In Sustainability and Reflexive Governance, edited by VoßJan-PeterKempRené, 225–272. Elgenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
37.
StraussAnselm L.CorbinJuliet M.. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Van den HovenJeroenJacobKlausLindaNielsenFrançoiseRoureLaimaRudzeJackStilgoeKnutBlindAnna-LenaGuskeCarlosMartinez Riera. 2013. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. EUR25766 EN. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
39.
Von HippelEric. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
WynneBrian. 1991. “Knowledges in Context.” Science, Technology, & Human Values16 (1): 111–21.
41.
WynneBrian. 2007. “Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–conceptual Category Mistake.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal1 (1): 99–110.
