Search

Transdisciplinary processes deal with transdisciplinary problems that are (i) complex, (ii) societally relevant, (iii) ill-defined, and (iv) real-world problems which often show a high degree of ambiguity resulting in contested perceptions and evaluations among and between scientists and practitioners. Therefore, they are susceptible to multiple trade-offs. Transdisciplinary processes construct socially robust orientations (SoROs) particularly for sustainable transitioning. The integration of science and practice knowledge on equal footing (1) is considered the core of transdisciplinary processes. Yet other forms of knowledge integration contribute essentially to construct SoROs. Individuals may (2) use different modes of thought; (3) refer to various cultures with diverse value and belief systems; and (4) problems are perceived and prioritized based on roles and interests. Coping with transdisciplinary problems, (5) purposeful differentiation and integration and (6) an integration of evolutionary evolving codes of representing knowledge are necessary. Finally, (7) what systems to integrate requires consensus-building among participating scientists and practitioners. This paper is Part I of a two-part publication. It provides a conceptualization of the different types of knowledge integration. Part II analyzes tasks, challenges, and barriers related to different types of knowledge integration in five transdisciplinary processes which developed SoROs for sensitive subsystems of Germany affected by the irresponsible use of digital data. • Systemic, epistemic, and normative feature characterize transdisciplinary problems. • Science and practice use different drivers, rationales, and reward systems. • Seven types of knowledge integration build the core of transdisciplinary processes. • Understanding knowledge integration requires history and theory of science analyses. • The types of knowledge integration improve the practice of transdisciplinarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transdisciplinary problems are complex, ill-defined, societal real-world problems with high ambiguity that are contested and require multiple trade-offs. Part I of this paper showed that transdisciplinary processes include seven types of knowledge integration: system (ontological), epistemological, cultural, cognitive, social conflict, evolutionary (levels of representation), and complexity-theory-based types of knowledge integration. The epistemological integration of the different modes of reasoning from science and practice is a unique selling point of the transdisciplinary process. Part II presents five transdisciplinary processes for the responsible use of digital data in different vulnerable/sensitive subsystems of Germany (mobility, health, agriculture, SME, and social media). Between 10 and 18 participants (equally representing science and practice in each group) synchronously constructed socially robust orientations as pillars of a white book. We elaborate that outcomes of a transdisciplinary process can be improved, and barriers diminished by reflecting on which of the seven types of knowledge integration are applied (see Part I). This is done for the six phases of a transdisciplinary process: (1) triggering, (2) initiation, (3) preparation, (4) planning, (5) core, and (6) post-processing. We particularly address researchers and practitioners who seek insights into how the production and integration of knowledge can be improved by transdisciplinary processes. • A large-scaled transdisciplinary project serves to illustrate types of knowledge integration. • We present key questions, tasks, and barriers for six phases of a transdisciplinary process. • The balanced involvement of scientists and practitioners can be measured. • 18 lessons to be learned can serve as user manual for transdisciplinary processes. • Reflecting on knowledge integration helps to improve transdisciplinary processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conceptual change requires learners to restructure parts of their conceptual knowledge base. Prior research has identified the fragmentation and the integration of knowledge as 2 important component processes of knowledge restructuring but remains unclear as to their relative importance and the time of their occurrence during development. Previous studies mostly were based on the categorization of answers in interview studies and led to mixed empirical results, suggesting that methodological improvements might be helpful. We assessed 161 third-graders' knowledge about floating and sinking of objects in liquids at 3 measurement points by means of multiple-choice tests. The tests assessed how strongly the children agreed with commonly found but mutually incompatible statements about floating and sinking. A latent profile transition analysis of the test scores revealed 5 profiles, some of which indicated the coexistence of inconsistent pieces of knowledge in learners. The majority of students (63%) were on 1 of 7 developmental pathways between these profiles. Thus, a child's knowledge profile at a point in time can be used to predict further development. The degree of knowledge integration decreased on some individual developmental paths, increased on others, and remained stable on still others. The study demonstrates the usefulness of explicit quantitative models of conceptual change. The results support a constructivist perspective on conceptual development, in which developmental changes of a learner's knowledge base result from idiosyncratic, yet systematic knowledge-construction processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]