跨领域研究的理论与方法:以土地管理为例

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 近年来以整合科学知识和地方知识为核心的跨领域研究逐渐兴起，并成为可持续科学的主流范式之一。跨领域研究面向现实问题引导科学成果的社会效用转化，其中的关键问题是科学-实践沟通、利益相关者参与和知识整合。针对上述关键问题，笔者首先对当前国际上跨领域研究的理论和方法论进行梳理，并以中德合作可持续土地管理项目为例介绍具体经验，最后基于理论和实践对跨领域研究的关键要素和原则进行讨论，提出行动者层面的思维方式、沟通技能和权属意识以及知识领域层面的异质性、权力关系和翻译是科学与实践沟通交互的关键，指出跨领域研究的迭代性、自反性、动态性和灵活性原则，并强调文化背景的重要性。

关键词: 跨领域, 科学, 实践, 沟通, 利益相关者参与, 知识整合

Abstract: Transdisciplinary research increases to produce scientifically robust and socially relevant solutions for complex sustainability issues, through knowledge integration and mutual learning between scientists and praxis stakeholders, which became the mainstream of sustainability science. The key issues in transdisciplinarity are science-practice interaction, stakeholder participation, and knowledge integration. To address these issues, this article first review the current trend of transdisciplinary theories and methodologies, then take Chinese-German cooperated project on sustainable land management in Southwest China as a case study to reflect on the key management issues of transdisciplinary research, and discuss the elements and principles for successful transdisciplinary research. It is pointed out that scientists and practitioners need to change their perspective from the traditional science-driven research paradigm, raise awareness of the importance of communication and participation in knowledge generation, and improve their communication skills to better interact with each other. Project managers need to create suitable means so that stakeholders participate in and contribute to the solution development actively, and have ownership of the process and the solution. Understanding and accepting heterogeneity among stakeholders is a precondition for collaboration and negotiation. Power relations need to be carefully addressed so that all stakeholders and their opinions are equally valued. Translation and the role of the translator should be considered in for better communication across cultural and professional boundaries. For process management, iteration, reflexivity, dynamic and flexibility are important principles to timely adapt to specific or unexpected situations. Specific design and adjustment are needed concerning the cultural context of each specific case.

Key words: Transdisciplinary research, Science, Practice, Communication, Stakeholder Participation, Knowledge Integration

王珏 AENIS Thomas. 跨领域研究的理论与方法:以土地管理为例[J]. , 2021, 39(4): 0-0.

参考文献

[1] Steffen W, Crutzen P J, McNeill J R. The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of Nature[J]. Ambio, 2007, 36: 614-621. [2] Rockstr?m J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity[J]. Ecology and Society, 2009, 14(2): 32. [3] Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstr?m J, et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet[J]. Science, 2015, 347: 129855. [4] Funtowicz S O, Ravetz J R. Science for the post-normal age[J]. Futures, 1993, 25(7):739-755. [5] Miller T R. Constructing sustainability science: Emerging perspectives and research trajectories[J]. Sustainability Science, 2012, 8:79-293. [6] Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G. Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 2008, 16:111-121. [7] Tippett J, Handley J F, Ravetz J. Meeting the challenges of sustainable development–A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning[J]. Progress in Planning, 2007, 67(1):9-98. [8] Schneider F, Buser T. Promising degrees of stakeholder interaction in research for sustainable development[J]. Sustainability Science, 2018, 13:129-142. [9] van Kerkhoff L. Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principle-based approach[J]. Sustainability Science, 2014, 9(2):143-155. [10] Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, et al. From complex systems analysis to transformational change: A comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects[J]. Sustainability Science, 2012, 7:5-24. [11] Bernstein J H. Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues[J]. Journal of Research Practice, 2015, 11(1): R1. [12] Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F. Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization[J]. Ecological Economics, 2012, 79:1-10. [13] Stringer L C, Dougill A J. Channelling science into policy: Enabling best practices from research on land degradation and sustainable land management in dryland Africa[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2013, 114:328-335. [14] Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, et al. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science[J]. Ecological Economics, 2013, 92:1-15. [15] Lang D J, Wiek A, Bergmann M, et al. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges[J]. Sustainability Science, 2012, 7:25-43. [16] Pohl C. What is progress in transdisciplinary research? [J]. Futures, 2011, 43:618-626. [17] Russell A W, Wickson F, Carew A L. Transdisciplinarity: Context, contradictions and capacity[J]. Futures, 2008, 40:460-472. [18] Wiek A, Walter A I. A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision–making in complex systems[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2009, 197:360-370. [19] Polk M. Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving[J]. Futures, 2015, 65:110-122. [20] Walter A I, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, et al. Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method[J]. Evaluation of Program Planning, 2007, 30 (4):325-338, [21] Harris F, Lyon F. Transdisciplinary environmental research: A review of approaches to knowledge coproduction[R]. Swindon: ESRC Nexus Network, 2014. [22] Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, et al. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies[M]. London: Sage Publications, 1994. [23] Mogalle M. Management transdisziplin?rer Forschungsprozesse[M]. Basel: Birkh?user, 2001. [24] Dickel S. Transformationsforschung Jenseits Des Elfenbeinturms[J]. ?kologisches Wirtschaften, 2013, 2:17-18. [25] Klein J T. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities[M]. Virginia: University Press, 1996. [26] Kunseler E, Tuinstra W, Vasileiadou E, et al. The reflective futures practitioner: Balancing salience, credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders[J]. Futures, 2015, 66:1-12. [27] Salter J, Robinson J, Wiek A. Participatory methods of integrated assessment – A review[J]. WIREs Climate Change, 2010, 1:697-717. [28] Scholz R W, Steiner G. Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads[J]. Sustainability Science, 2015, 10:521-526. [29] Falk-Krzesinski H J, Contractor N, Fiore S M, et al. Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(2):145-158. [30] Hall K L, Vogel A L, Stipelman B, et al. A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: Goals, team processes, and strategies[J]. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2012, 2:415-430. [31] Scholz R W, Lang D J, Wiek A, et al. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory[2006]. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2006, 7:226–251. [32] Aenis T. A communication model for transdisciplinary consortium research(A). In: Ika D, Gr?tzer M eds. Building Sustainable Rural Futures. The Added Value of Systems Approaches in Times of Change and Uncertainty[C]. Vienna: Universit?t für Bodenkultur, 2010. 500-509. [33] Wang J, Aenis T, Siew T. Communication process in intercultural transdisciplinary research: Framework from a group perspective[J]. Sustainability Science, 2019a, 14(6): 1673-1684. [34] Forsyth D R. Group Dynamics[M]. 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing, 2010. [35] Fischer A R H, Tobi H, Ronteltap A. When natural met social: A review of collaboration between the natural and social sciences[J]. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2011, 36:341-358. [36] Wiek A. Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation – experiences from transdisciplinary case study research[J]. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 2007, 16:52-57. [37] Siew T F, Aenis T, Spangenberg J H, et al. Transdisciplinary research in support of land and water management in China and Southeast Asia: Evaluation of four research projects[J]. Sustainability Science, 2016, 11(5):813-829. [38] Wang J. Science-practice Interaction in Transdisciplinary Research. Analysis from the Communication Perspective[M]. Weikersheim: Margraf, 2020. [39] Bryson J M, Patton M Q, Bowman R A. Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit[J]. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2011, 34:1-12. [40] Freeman E R. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management[M]. Mansfield: Pitman, 1984. [41] Grimble R. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management[M]. Chatham: Natural Resources Institute, 1998. [42] Reed M S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review[J]. Biological Conservation, 2008, 141(10):2417-2431. [43] Patel M, Kok K, Rothman D S. Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the northern Mediterranean[J]. Land Use Policy, 2007, 24:546-561. [44] van Asselt M, Rijkens–Klomp N. A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2002, 12:167-184. [45] Dougill A J, Fraser E D G, Holden J, et al. Learning from doing participatory rural research: Lessons from the Peak District National Park[J]. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2006, 57:259-275. [46] Grimble R, Wellard K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems, 1997, 55:173-193. [47] Cash D W, Clark W C, Alcock F, et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2003, 100:8086-8091. [48] Johnson N, Lilja N, Ashby J A, et al. Practice of participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management[J]. Nature Resource Forum, 2004, 28:189-200. [49] Leventon J, Fleskens L, Claringbould H, et al. An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research[J]. Sustainability Science, 2016, 11:763-775. [50] Reed M S, Graves A, Dandy N, et al. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, 90:1933-1949. [51] Clarkson M B E. A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance[J]. Acadamic of Management Review, 1995, 20: 92-117. [52] Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management[J]. Society and Natural Resources, 2009, 22:501-518. [53] Hurni H. Assessing sustainable land management[J]. Agricultural Ecosystem and Environment, 2000, 81:83-92. [54] Mitchell C, Cordell D, Fam D. Beginning at the end: The outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research[J]. Futures, 2015, 65:86-96. [55] Grimble R, Chan M. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries: Some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective[J]. Natural Resources Forum, 1995, 19(2):113-124. [56] Luyet V, Schlaepfer R, Parlange M B, et al. A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2012, 111:213-219. [57] Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z. Stakeholder analysis: A review[J]. Health Policy Plan, 2000, 15(3):239-46. [58] Calvert S. Managing stakeholders[A]. In Turner J R ed. The Commercial Project Manager[C]. London: McGraw-Hill, 1995. 214-222. [59] ODA. Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid projects and programmes[M]. London: Overseas Development Administration, 1995. [60] Pouloudi A, Whitley E A. Stakeholder identification in interorganizational systems: Gaining insights for drug use management systems[J]. European Journal of Information Systems,1997, 6(1):1-14. [61] Jepsen A L, Eskerod P. Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world[J]. International Journal of Project Management, 2009, 27:335-343. [62] Wang J, Aenis T, Hofmann-Souki S. Stakeholder analysis in support of joint land use decision making: Case from Southwest China[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019b, 243:1-11. [63] Crona B, Bodin ?. What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management[J]. Ecology and Society, 2006, 11(2): 7. [64] Raymond C M, Fazey I, Reed M S, et al. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2010, 91:1766-1777. [65] Balsiger P W. Supradisciplinary research practices: History, objectives and rationale[J]. Futures, 2004, 36:407-421. [66] Wickson F, Carew A L, Russell A W. Transdisciplinary research: Characteristics, quandaries and quality[J]. Futures, 2006, 38:1046-1059. [67] Reed M S, Hubacek K, Bonn A, et al. Anticipating and managing future trade-offs and complementarities between ecosystem services[J]. Ecology and Society, 2013a, 18(1):5. [68] Stringer L C, Reed M S. Land degradation assessment in southern Africa: Integrating local and scientific knowledge bases[J]. Land Degradation and Development, 2007, 18:99-116. [69] Scholz R W. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. [70] Stahl C, Cimorelli A, Mazzarella C, et al. Toward sustainability: A casestudy demonstrating transdisciplinary learning through the selection and use of indicators in a decision–making process[J]. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2011, 7:483-498. [71] Reed M S, Kenter J, Bonn A, et al. Participatory scenario development for environmental management: A methodological framework illustrated with experience from the UK uplands[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2013b, 128:345-362. [72] Lynam T, De Jong W, Sheil D, et al. A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision-making in natural resources management[J]. Ecology and Society, 2007, 12(1):5. [73] Moser S C. Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions[J]. WIREs Climate Change, 2010, 1:31-53. [74] Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, et al. Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice[M]. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2012. [75] Meadows D H, Meadows D L, Randers J, et al. The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind[M]. New York: Universe Books, 1972. [76] Yanow D. Conducting Interpretative Policy Analysis[M]. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000. [77] Irwin A. Sociology and the Environment[M]. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. [78] Yi Z, Cannona C, Chen J, et al. Developing indicators of economic value and biodiversity loss for rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China: A case study[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2013, 36:788-797. [79] Tuckman B W. Developmental sequence in small groups[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 63:384-399. [80] Wang J, Aenis T, Hofmann-Souki S. Triangulation in participation: Dynamic approaches for science-practice interaction in land-use decision making in rural China[J]. Land Use Policy, 2018, 72:364-371. [81] Pohl C. Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research[J]. Futures, 2005, 37:1159-1178. [82] Long S D, Vaughan L. Interpersonal communication[A]. In: Rogelberg S G ed. Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology[C]. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006. 363-367. [83] Belli G. Bridging researcher-practitioner-gap: Views from different fields[A]. In: Reading C ed. Data and Context in Statistics Education: Towards an Evidence-Based Society. Voorburg: International Statistical Institute, 2010. 1D3 [84] Ginsburg M B, Gorostiaga J M. Relationships between theorists/researchers and policy makers/practitioners: Rethinking the two cultures thesis and the possibility of dialogue[J]. Comparative Education Review, 2001, 45:173-196. [85] Hirschkorn M, Geelan D. Bridging the research-practice gap research translation and/or research transformation[J]. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 2008, 54:1-13. [86] Schauppenlehner-Kloyber E, Penker M. Managing group processes in transdisciplinary future studies: How to facilitate social learning and capacity building for self–organised action towards sustainable urban development?[J]. Futures, 2015, 65:57-71. [87] Bagnol B, Clarke E, Li M, et al. Transdisciplinary project communication and knowledge sharing experiences in Tanzania and Zambia through a One Health Lens[J]. Frontiers in Public Health, 2016. 4:10. [88] Star S, Griesemer J. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39[J]. Social studies of science, 1989, 19(3):387-420. [89] Bracken L J, Bulkeley H A, Whitman G. Transdisciplinary research: Understanding the stakeholder perspective[J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2014, 58:1291-1308. [90] Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science[J]. Futures, 2015, 65:45-56. [91] Weichselgartner J, Kasperson R. Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2010, 20:266-277.