Crossingborders:transdisciplinaryapproachesinregionaldevelopment

UlliVilsmaier,UniversityofSalzburg
Publishedin:GeographicaTimisiensis,VolXVII,12,2008,Timisoara,Romania.

Transdisciplinarity:Searchfornewformsofknowledgeproduction
Sincethe90ththeuseofthetermtransdisciplinarityhasincreasedenormously(Kuefferetal.
2007).Thesearchforanewtypeofresearch,ofknowledgeproductionandproblemsolvingis
principally based on difficulties and lack of success in dealing with complex, realworld
problems.Becauseofitsincreasingcomplexityandinterdependency,transdisciplinarityiscalled
for in all fields of human interaction with natural systems (Thomson Klein 2005: 517).
Transdisciplinaryresearchemanatesfromrealworldproblemsthatrequireappliedresearchfor
problemsolving.Theprimacyoftheproblemforcestoadoptformsofresearchtothespecific
situationtobetransformed,ashistoricallygrowndisciplinarystructuresusuallydonotmeet
theircomplexity.Butthetermtransdisciplinarityaimsatmorethanarenamingofthemore
commontermofinterdisciplinarity.Itisnotonlyasearchforcrossingdisciplinaryboarders.The
searchfornew,transdisciplinaryformsofknowledgeproductionaimsatintegratingdifferent
formsofknowledgesuchasorientationknowledgeorpracticalknowledgegainedineveryday
life as well as scientific knowledge elaborated within a disciplinary frame. In this sense,
conceptualizing transdisciplinarity as a new form of research meets central epistemological
questionsofscience.Thehistoricallygrownformofmodern,occidentalsciencethathasbeen
structured, defined and framed over centuries is questioned in some of its fundamental
characteristics.First,itsindependencyofanyotherformofcognitionaswellasits(postulated)
hierarchicallyhigherpositionincomparisontoanyothersystemofknowledgearequestioned
(Feltetal.1999;Nowotny1999).Itisthereforealsocalledthescienceandartofdiscovering
bridgesbetweendifferentareasofknowledgeanddifferentbeings(ThomsonKlein2004:516,
referringtoNicolescu2001).
These questions are of course not new nor do they originally arise out of the debate on
transdisciplinarity.Whatmakestheactualdiscussiononknowledgeintegrationandculturesof
cognitionspecialisthepractical,theappliedcontexttheyarearisingfrom.Whateverhasbeen
subjectofphilosophyandtheoryofscienceforalongtime,the
1
debateontransdisciplinaritystartedtointegratethesesubjectsintothecoreofappliedresearch
onrealworldproblems,takingplacewithinawiderangeofdisciplinesonbothsidesofthe
traditionalculturesofscience.Butthedebateisstillveryheterogeneousasitisrelativelyyoung
and did come up in different thematically contexts. Therefore, I will point out the most
characteristicaspectsofunderstandingsoftransdisciplinarity.
Whatwecanidentifyascommonaspectsisthattransdisciplinarityisalwaysunderstoodasa
formofknowledgeproductionbeingforcedbyrealworldproblems.Thesearchforanew
formofscience,theneedtowidenupdisciplinarycontractions,historicallydevelopedborders
betweendisciplines,iscausedbysocietalproblems.LievenandMaasen(2007)regarditevenas
areactiontoanemergencythatforcesustolookfordifferentmodesofresearch.Thedefinition
ofresearchquestionsisthereforealwaysorientedonextrascientificsituations.Andthereisa
consensus about the chance in reintegrating realworld problems with academic knowledge.
Transdisciplinary forms of knowledge should connect what has been disconnected by the
ongoing specification and fragmentation of knowledge production in disciplinary structure.
Therefore,transdisciplinarityalwaysmeansdifferentdisciplinesjointlyworkingtogetherwithout
leavingtheirtheoreticalandmethodologicaldisciplinaryframework.Itshouldbecomplemented
notsubstituted.Transdisciplinaryresearchisanadditionaltypewithinthespectrumofresearch
andcoexistswithtraditionalmonodisciplinaryresearch.(ThomsonKleinetal.2001:4).
Themaindifferencewithintheactualdebaterelatestothetypeofknowledgeorknowledge
productionthatshouldcomplementdisciplinarilygainedresults.Whileonebranchofthedebate
onlyquestionstheinternalstructuresofasocalledbodyofknowledge(e.g.Mittelstra2003),
authorslikeNowotny(1999)beforetogetherwithGibbonsetal.(1996),Scholzetal.(2000,
2006),ThomsonKlein(2006)andThomsonKleinetal.(2001),MaxNeef(2005),Freyerand
Muhar(2006a)donotonlyquestiontheinternalstructurebutalsotheshapeofthisbodyof
knowledge.Inotherwords:thediscussionquestionstheexclusiveacademicformofresearchand
advocatestheintegrationofnonscientificformsofknowledge.Therefore,theparticipationof
non scientific actors in research on real world problems is a key question within this
understandingoftransdisciplinarity.Theideabehindisthatscientificanalysisorknowledge
productionisregardedasonespecialformthatcontainscomplementarypartswhicharetobe
integratedtogetamorecompleteunderstandingofproblems.Further,theaimistostrengthen
theapplicationorimplementationofresultsbyworkingjointlywiththosehavingtoimplement
changes.InwordsofRudolfHberli:Thecoreideaoftransdisciplinarityisdifferentacademic
disciplinesworkingjointlywithpractitionerstosolvearealworldproblem(inThomsonKlein
etal.2001:4).Butworkingtogether
2
requiresanunderstandingfortheneedofcomplementarityandmutualityinresearchprocesses
whichhastobegainedonatleasttwolevels.
Firstofalltheepistemologicalneedforintegratingdifferentformsofknowledgeandculturesof
cognitionhastobeclarifiedtobeabletoseescientificproductionofknowledgeasonespecific
knowledge system that is always embedded into a wider historical and therefore cultural
context1.InwordsofErichHamberger:Sciencecanoperateonlyagainstthebackgroundofan
allembracing understanding of human cognition. Scientific insight as a cultural act occurs
transdisciplinarilyasitemergesoutofacontextofinterpretationlocatedbetweenscientificand
extrasscientificcognition.(2004:489).Thustransdisciplinarityemergesasascientificessential
(ibid:2004).Ifscientificknowledgeproductionisnottoseparatefromotherformsofordering
theworld,theintegrationofdifferentsourcesofknowledgecanbearguedandunderstoodin
appliedscience.Secondly,itrequiresarevisionontheselfunderstandingoftheownscientific
expertisethatisstill(often)regardedtobehigherinqualityrelatedtootherformsofexpertise.
This is probably the most difficult process to prepare a basis for a mutual learning and
heterarchicalknowledgeintegration.Evenifusefulmethodsforintegratingdifferentqualitiesof
knowledge (e.g. scenario techniques, see Freyer and Muhar 2006a) are applied, knowledge
integrationneedsalwaysdialoguesandasuccessfuldialoguedependsprincipallyonthepersonal
attitudeofeachpartner.IfmutuallearningisakeyoftransdisciplinaryresearchasThompson
Kleinetal.(2001)pointout,thedevelopmentofthisnewformofresearchhasalottodowith
thereflectionofourselves.
Jointresearchonregionaldevelopment
Regional development as a subject of applied research is extremely high in complexity. It
comprisesseveralsubproblemsthattacklequestionsoutofawiderangeofdisciplinesfrom
natural science, social science and the humanities. Therefore, it was always organized
interdisciplinarily to some extent. But practical experiences lead to the insight that regional
developmentcannotonlybegovernedandmanagedfromanexteriorpointofview,evenifitis
organizedinterdisciplinarily.Thelackofsuccessintransformingregionswithoutintegratingthe
inhabitants,localorregionalauthoritiesandopinionleadersleadtoarevisionofmethodologyon
differentlevels.OnanadministrativeleveltheEuropeanUnionwasanchoringtheprincipleof
subsidiarity and public participation to develop bottom up and therefore dialogue oriented
processesofregionaldevelopment.Manynationalanddepartmentallawsweremodifiedthe
sameway.Ashift
1ForfurtherdiscussionontheepistemologicaldimensionoftransdisciplinarityseeB.Nicolescu2001(seealso
footnote2);Ph.W.Balsiger2004:Supradisciplinaryresearchpractice:history,objectivesandrationale.In:Futures
36,407421;MaxNeef2005:Foundationsoftransdisciplinarity.In:EcologicalEconomics53,516.

3
fromatopdowntoabottomuporientedplanninganddevelopmentcultureshouldtakeplace.
Sincethebeginningofthe90thpublicparticipationhas,atleastformally,becomethestatusquo
inregionaldevelopmentandinplanninginmanyEuropeancountries.
Within science the search for a new methodological access to complex questions such as
transformations of regions has come up since the mid 90th. The academic reflection on
knowledgeintegrationintermsofsystematiccollaborationbetweenscienceandnonscientific
actors has been applied in various fields2. As shown above they have in common that the
research questions are not to answer within the horizon of empirical analysis. They are
characterizedbyhavingnotonlyanempiricalandpragmaticallevelbutalsoanormativeand
value level. Basarab Nicolescu, head of the CIRET (Centre International de Recherches et
EtudesTransdisciplinaires),points outthecoreideaoftransdisciplinaritybytheaidoffour
different horizons of questions that he relates to levels of reality. In his Manifesto of
Transdisciplinarityhediffersbetweenanempiricallevel,apragmaticlevel,anormativelevel
andavaluelevelwhichheconsidersaslevelsofrealitythatshouldbelinkedintransdisciplinary
research(2002)3.Transdisciplinarityisconstitutedincombiningthesefourlevelsgivinganswers
tothefourquestions:
Whatdoesexist?(empiricallevel)Whatarewecapableofdoing?(Pragmaticlevel)Whatdo
wewanttodo?(Normativelevel)Whatshouldwedo?Or:Howshouldwedowhatwewantto
do?(Valuelevel)
Allthequestionsarisinginthefieldofregionaldevelopmentareusuallywithinthishorizon.
Thereareofcoursequestionsthataretobeanalyzedwithintheempiricallevel,suchasthe
aspectsofthefunctionalityofanecosystemormaterialflow.Butthedevelopmentofaregionis
toalargeextentbasedoncriteriawithhighsubjectivitysuchasindividualneeds,wishes,hopes,
fearsorpersonalvisions,philosophies,values,tonamejustafew.Therefore,transdisciplinary
approaches in research on regional development are appropriate in the search for possible
transformations.Participationofnonacademicsinresearchprocessallowtogetamorecomplete
pictureofacomplexsituationasamultiperspectiveapproachtakesintoconsiderationthatthere
are as many interpretations of world as there are people. But participatory approaches in
researchdonotonlyallowforamoredetailedanalysisofasituation.Duetoajointproceeding
in problem solving or creating futures participatory approaches are getting more and more
fruitfulinresearchonregionaldevelopment.Identificationwiththeregionitselforatleast
2Foranoverviewanddiscussionofappliedtransdisciplinaritysee:GAIA1/2007,onlineavailableat
www.ingentaconnect.comorETHUNScasestudiesdonebytheSwissFederalInstituteofTechnology,Zurich,
onlinehttp://www.uns.ethz.ch/translab/.3OriginalinFrench1996:Latransisciplinarit:manifest.Editionsdu
Rocher,Paris.TranslationtoRomanian:TransdisciplinaritateaManifest,Polirom,Coll.Plural,Bucarest,1999,
traductionenroumaindeHoriaMihailVasilescu;2edition:Junimea,Iasi,2007.CIRETonline:
http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/english/indexen.htm.

4
withaprojectthatshouldbeimplementedcanbestrengthenedandajointimplementationcanbe
realized more constructively. If we focus once again on the four questions pointed out by
Nicoulescuandputthemintothecontextofthedevelopmentofaregionwithunfavourable
conditionsforinhabitantsandentrepreneurs,itisobviousthattraditionalmethodsofanalysis
evenorganizedinterdisciplinarilydonothavethecapabilityoffindingappropriateanswers.An
analysismeasuringeconomicdisparities,thelackofeducation,qualificationandlabourmarket,
environmentalpollution,tonamejustafew,evencomplementedwithqualitativesocialstudies
oncontentedness,regionalidentityandhealthcannotdisplaceaprocessofjointknowledge
production.Mutuallearningwithinalivingdialogueenablesnotonlytheexchangeofgiven
knowledge and opinions. It also leads to joint production of knowledge which makes the
difference.Itriedtopointoutthatthisisofcoursenottobeorganizedinanarbitraryway.
Transdisciplinary research needs to be based in a common rationality and it needs its own
methodology for knowledge integration. But what does it mean to be based in a common
rationality?Westilltrytobridgethegapbetweennaturalscienceandthehumanities.How
shouldwethenovercomebordersbetweenscienceandnonscientificknowledgeproduction?
Thisisnotthemomentofgoingfurtherintothatdimensionasthecontributionaimsatreflecting
transdisciplinaryapproachesinappliedresearchonregionaldevelopment.Atleastitshouldbe
highlightedthatwithinthediscussionoftransdisciplinaritytherearedifferentwaysofthinking
outlinedgoingbeyondclassicallogicandthereforeopeningupperspectivesonnewrationalities
(e.g.Nicolescu2001,Hamberger2004,MaxNeef2005,Balsiger2004).
Creatingspaceforresearchonregionaldevelopment
Transdisciplinary approaches in regional development aim at creating space for research by
settingupacommunicationnetwhichisunderstoodtobeheterarchical.Thisdoesnotmeanthat
alltheparticipantsdohavethesamerole.Theprincipalunderstandingofparticipationasequal
association, cooperation, joint contribution and control allows for creating a communication
spacebasedondifferentcomplementarystrengthsandpotentials.Astheyarecomplementary,
theirvaluecannotbeorderedinahierarchicalway.Theyareneededforcompletingeachother.
Thespacethatisopenedupindialogue,exchangeandstructuredknowledgeintegrationaims
atcrossingmanyboarders.Notonlytheboardersbetweenthescientificsystemofknowledge
productionbutalsobordersbetweenseparatedareasinsocietyoreconomicsectorsshouldbe
overcome if necessary for the research question. In the following, a research project on
transdisciplinaryapproaches inregionaldevelopment will outline importantsteps fora joint
researchprocess.
Howshalllandscape,landuseandsocietyintheregionappearintenyearsfromnow?
5
Thiswastheoverallquestionthatshouldleadtoascenariodevelopmentandprojectelaboration
toinitiatechangesinregionaldevelopment.Researchers,students,authoritiesandinhabitantsout
oftheOberpinzgauregion(Salzburg,Austria)jointlyelaboratedandoutlinedpossiblefuture
developments.Theprojectwiththetitle:Leben2014perspectives forintegratedregional
developmentinthenationalparkregionHoheTauern,Oberpinzgau,Salzburgwasapilotstudy
on transdisciplinary research and teaching, jointly conducted by the University of Applied
Science,ViennaandtheUniversityofSalzburgandcommissionedbytheAustrianMinistryfor
Education,ScienceandCultureandtheninelocalmunicipalitiesoftheOberpinzgauregion4.To
giveanideaofthesizeoftheproject:ittookplacefrom20022005andinvolvedaround20
researchersandlecturers,50studentsfrom6studyprogramsoutofnaturalandsocialscience
andaround70personsoutoftheprojectregionworkingconstantlytogether,notcountingpupils
and inhabitants being involved at certain steps of the project for scenario assessment or
interviews.Themostintensiveperiodofcollaborationtookplaceinspring2004,werestudents
andresearchersremainedintheregionoverseveralweeks.
Regionalpartnerorganisations:NinemunicipalitiesoftheregionOberpinzgau,RegionManagerPinzgau;EU
LEADER+,FerienregionNationalparkHoheTauernGmbH,Tauriska/LeopoldKohrAkademie;m2Kulturexpress
Partnersfromprovinceadministrations:DepartmentofAgricultureandForestry;ofEconomy;TourismandEnergy,
PlanningDepartment,SalzburgInstituteofSpatialPlanning;CommissionerforCultureUniversities,departments:
UniversityofAppliedScience,Vienna:LandscapePlanning,AgriculturalSciences,ForestrySciencesUniversityof
Salzburg:Geography,Sociology,CommunicationSciencesSchools:TwosecondaryschoolsInhabitants:
Representativesofregionalinitiatives,interestedindividuals
Fig.1:ProjectPartnersLeben2014'

TheOberpinzgauregionisaplanningregion,including9municipalitieswithatotalof22.100
inhabitants. It is situated at the upper Salzachriver and forms part of the Department of
Salzburg.Theregionliesinaperipherallocationrelatedtomaintrafficroutes(11.5htothenext
highwayand0.51htothemainrailroute),anditsdistancetothecapitalofthedepartment(1.5
2htothecityofSalzburg).Accordingtoitsperipherallocationithascertainweaknesseslike
thelackofjobs(78/100)5andthereductionofthepurchasingpower.Buttherehasbeena
surprisinglyconstantgrowthin
4TheresearchreportincludingevaluationstothemethodologicalapproachwaspublishesingermanbyMuharand
Freyer(Eds)2006a:TransdisziplinreKooperationinderuniversitrenAusbildung.DieFallstudieLeben2014in
derNationalparkregionHoheTauern/Oberpinzgau.SelectedaspectswerepublishedinEnglishsuchas
TransdisciplinaryGoalFindinginRegionalDevelopmentProcesses(Vilsmaier,Freyer,Muhar2005a),Initiating
transdisciplinarityinacademiccasestudyteaching(Muhar,Vilsmaier,Glanzer,Freyer2006c)andThePolarity
FieldConceptANewApproachforIntegratedRegionalPlanningandSustainableProcesses(Muhar,Vilsmaier,
Freyer2006b).5Jobofferrelatedtoemployedlivingintheregion(see:RegionalManagementPinzgau:
www.regpi.at).

6
residentpopulation(6%)andagrowthinjoboffers(22%)since1991.Theactualdevelopment
canbeinterpretedduetothebackgroundofsomespecificcharacteristicsoftheregion.The
region forms part of the national park Hohe Tauern which was founded in 1984. After an
intensiveandcontradictoryprocessofdiscussionsrelatedtotheimplementationofthenational
parkduringthefirstyears,authoritiesandinhabitantsstartedtopositiontheregionasanational
park region expanding its potential tosustainable tourism and small scale industrysuch as
timberconstructionandagriculture.Thehighqualityofenvironmentalconditionsandthevariety
ofsparetimeactivitieswereperceivedashighvalueswhichstrengthenedtheidentityandthe
positiveimageoftheregion.Further,therehasalwaysbeenastronginternalcohesionwhichhas
beenimprovedbymanydifferentformsofactivitiesrelatedtothetraditionoftheregion,its
natural potentials and heritages. But the region is also characterized by a very polarized
development.Whilethesouthernpartoftheareaisaprotectedareaandthereforetakenoutof
economic activities except thenational parktourism andforms ofextensiveagriculture, the
valleyandthenorthernpartarehighindynamicsandintensiveineconomicuse.Amaintarget
fortheOberpinzgauregionistofindabalanceinthisdevelopmentwhichwouldenablethe
regiontomaintainthepositivedevelopmentontheonehandandnottodestroythespecific
imageasanationalparkregionandthequalityofrecreationontheother.
Theprojectwasconceptualizedbythefollowingthreemaingoals:1)developingmethodsand
working structures for transdisciplinary knowledge integration, 2) a model for inter and
transdisciplinaryteachinginhighereducationand3)appliedobjectivesrelatedtotheregional
developmentoftheOberpinzgauregion.Focussingongoalnumber1and3now,Iwouldliketo
makesomecommentsontheestablishmentofcommunicationandworkingstructures.Also,I
would like to point out how a general understanding of the common goals between the
representativesoutoftheregionandtheacademiacouldgrow,forthisturnedouttobeakey
topicuntiltheendoftheproject.
Astheideaofaresearchprojectontransdisciplinarityresearchinregionaldevelopmentwas
bornoutsidetheregion,itwasimportanttofindoutproperlyiftherewouldbeaneedanda
vision for such a study within the region. Therefore, we found it crucial to initiate a slow
approach to the region keeping it open whether cooperation would be established or not.
Probablythemostdifficultaspectwastofindacommonlanguageandtogettoknowtheothers
perspectives related to the potential such a study might have. The decision was made after
severalmeetingswiththe9mayors,theregionalmanagerandseveralrepresentativesofsome
regionalorganizations.Bythenitwasuptoasteeringcommitteewhichwasconstitutedby
representatives out of the municipalities, regional organizations (such as some cultural
associations,thenationalpark,thetourism
7
marketing)andrepresentativesoftheuniversitiestodecideonthearchitectureoftheresearch
process.Thereweresomeprincipalideaswecouldagreeonthatwereleadingthroughthewhole
process:
Multiperspectivity: A common understanding could be developed about the need of
complementaryperspectivesandexperiencesrelatedtotheresearchquestions.Itwasnotfrom
thebeginningonthatallthepartnersdidincorporatethiskeyideaoftransdisciplinarity.There
werecertainexpectationsaccordingthepotentialofacademicexpertsaswellasprejudices
fromboth,theacademicandnonacademicparticipantsthathadtobeovercome.Further,itwas
importanttodecideonabalancedcompositionoftheprojectteam,representingpeoplefrom
differentlabourcontexts,ageandgender.
Jointdevelopmentofacommonproblemunderstandinganddefinitionofresearchquestions:The
overallquestionleadingtheresearchprocesshadtobebrokendowntooperationalquestions
whichshouldcontainthemesthatwererelevanttothemajorityofpeople.Thethemefinding
processwasasignificantpartoftheprojectasitwasthetimewherealltheparticipantsdid
expressanddeveloptheirpersonalpointofviews,prioritiesandexpectations.Anditwasan
important period of developing a common problem understanding since university members
comingfromoutsideoftheregionhadthechancetodipintothemattersoftheregion.Withthe
aidoftheresearchersandstudents,regionalrepresentativesalsogotsomenewideasofnew
perspectives and knowledge. Further, it was the period for creating confidence due to the
establishment of personal relations. In eight steps (workshops, presentations, interviews) six
mainresearchquestionsweredefinedandelaboratedasresearchfieldsforsixworkinggroups6
(seefig.2).
Howshalllandscape,landuseandsocietyintheregionappearintenyearsfromnow?
WildernessandCulture:Howcanthenationalpark,agricultureandtourismbeintegrated?TraditionandInnovation:
Howcanneweconomicimpulsesbeinfusedbetweentraditionandinnovation?FastandSlow:Howshould
integratedandsustainablemobilityconceptslooklike?YoungandOld:Whichsocialandsparetimerelated
benefitsareneededtokeepitattractiveforinhabitants?InsideandOutside:Howcanexternalinfluencesbejoined
withexistingpotentialsforsustainabledevelopment?
Fig.2:Workinggroups:namesofpolarityfieldsandleadingresearchquestions.

Jointresponsibilityfordecisionsandownershipofideas:Asmentionedaboveasteering
committeewasinstalledatthebeginningoftheprojectwheremostofthe
6Formoredetailssee:Vilsmaieretal.2005a

8
communicationbetweenacademicsandregionalrepresentativestookplaceanddecisionswere
negotiated.Butitturnedouttobecrucialtoclarifywithalltheparticipantstheresponsibilities,
rolesandexpectations.Nonetheless,thisprocedurecouldavoidconflictsanddisappointments,
anditcouldclarifyonesownroleandtargets.Wefounditalsoveryimportanttojointlyreflect
ontheownershipofideas.Evenifitwasnotpossibletotracebacktotheoriginatoreveryidea
andcontribution,itwasatleasttheresponsibilityoftheacademicstomentionthosewhohad
contributedtoatransdisciplinaryprocessortoofferjointpresentationsorpublications.7
Establishment of transparent and stimulating working and communication structures: An
establishmentofaclearworkingandcommunicationstructurewasnecessaryforcreatingan
openandconstructivespacewherealltheparticipantswouldfeelequal,freeandconfident.Thus
sixworkinggroupsbasedonthesixmainresearchquestionsweresetup.Thestructuringofthe
workingprocessfollowedtheideaofpolarities.Sincedifferencesareeasilyseenasopposing
positions,theconstructionofasystematicinbetweennessofcontradictorypolesshouldopenup
thewidefieldinbetweenthem.Thestructureitselfshouldinvitetostepoutofoldboundariesof
thinking,anditaimsatopeningupnewcommunicationcannelsbybringingtogetherthepersons
outofdifferentfields.8Theworkinggroupswerecomposedofstudents,localplayersandoneor
tworesearchers.Obviously,localplayerscouldonlyparticipateinpartastheyhadtofollow
theirdailylives.9.Thesixpolarityfieldswereworkingindependentlymostofthetimewithan
informationexchangeonceaweekduringthecoreperiodinspring2004.Eachstudenthad
her/his specific role being responsible for general coordination of the working group,
methodology (to follow the overall methodological frame of the scenario technique), group
dynamics,datamanagement,terminologyorgenderaspects.ParticipantsfromtheOberpinzgau
regionwereequallydemandedtocomplementtheresearchprocessaccordingthescenariosteps.
7Formoredetailssee:Muharetal.2006c:301f.8Thepolarityfieldapproachwasdevelopedduringtheproject.It
waselaboratedtoreplaceestablishedmodelsforthematicstructuringofplanninganddevelopmentprocessessuch
assectoralorconflictorientedapproaches.FormoredetailsseeMuharetal.2006b.9Formoreinformationabout
theresearcharchitectureandmethodsofcollaborationwithinthepolarityfieldsseeFreyerandMuhar2006a.

9
 SingleandTogether
InsideandOutside
FastandSlow
YoundandOld
WildernessandCulture
Lecturers
Students
LocalPlayers
TraditionandInnovation

Fig.3:Polarityfieldstructure.Source:FreyerandMuhar2006a:23

Duringthefirstyearoftheprojectwhenfirstcollaborationstepsweremadeandthetheme
finding process was going on, the projects architecture and the overall methodological
frameworkweredeveloped.Duringyeartwo,mainlyfromApriltoJune2004,therealizationof
thescenariodevelopmentforpossiblefuturedevelopmentsoftheregionwasmade.Thepolarity
fieldstructurefavouredtheelaborationofopposingscenarios.Eachworkinggroupdidelaborate
twotothreescenarioswhichwereassessedinvariousscenarioassessmentsbygeneralpublic,
pupils and academics. Implementation projects based on the favourites were elaborated and
proposed to the public and to the politicians. Some of these implementation projects were
selectedforimplementation.
Theexperienceofthetransdisciplinaryresearchonregionaldevelopmentwithandwithinthe
Oberpinzgauregionanditspeoplewaschameleonic.Itwasprimarilyanintensivelessonforme
andformanyofmycolleagues.Workingtogetherwithpeoplewhoareusuallytoobjectify,as
objectsofresearch,requiresareorderingoffamiliarmethods,habitsandaboveallattitudes.It
forcestoquestionwhatamatterofcourseisintraditionalresearchandallowsgettinginsights
thatcouldnotbeaccessedinanotherway.Itwasanenormousgrowthinmanyways.Therewere
theseconstantinterdisciplinarydiscussionsonmeaningsofwords,potentialsofmethodsand
compatibilityoftheories.Furtherthereisthistendencyofscientistsworkingtogetherwithnon
academics to be more equal... On the other hand the experience showed that some of the
principleselaboratedfortransdisciplinaryresearchwereeasytoapply,otherstendedtofailor
hadtobereformulated,adoptedorsimplydiscussedconstantly.Theresultswerediversetoo.
While a concept for a stronger cooperation of the nine municipalities as a planning region
(elaborated by the polarityfield single and together) was implemented and influenced the
regionaldevelopmentcruciallyonapoliticalanddecisionmakinglevel,othersuggestedand
evenselectedprojectsseemtobeforgotten
10
now.Icouldonlygiveaverybriefinsightintotheapplicationoftheideaoftransdisciplinarityas
thereistoolesstime/spaceforextendingtheexperiences.Itriedtolineoutsomeaspectswhich
areprimarilytoreflectduetothebackgroundofasocietalroleofsciencethatwasconstructed
over centuries. The example was addressed to give an idea of new forms of knowledge
productioninappliedresearchonregionaldevelopment.
Literature
Balsiger,Ph.W.,2004:Supradisciplinaryresearchpractices:history,objectivesandrationale.In:Futures36,p.
407421.
Felt,U.,2001:WiekommtWissenschaftzuWissen?PerspektivenderWissenschaftsforschung.In:T.Hug(Ed.):
EinfhrungindieWissenschaftstheorieundWissenschaftsforschung,Vol.4.Hohengehren.
Freyer,B.andA.Muhar(Eds.),2006a:TransdisziplinreKooperationinderuniversitrenAusbildung.Die
FallstudieLeben2014inderNationalparkregionHoheTauern/Oberpinzgau.Wien.
Gibbons,M.,C.Limoges,H.Nowotny,S.Schwartzman,P.Scott,M.Trow,1994:TheNewProductionofKnowledg
TheDynamicsofScienceandResearchinContemporarySocieties.London.
Glanzer,M.,B.Freyer,A.Muhar,Th.SchauppenlehnerandU.Vilsmaier(Eds.):Leben2014Perspektivender
Regionalentwicklung in der Nationalparkregion Hohe Tauern/Oberpinzgau. Dokumentation der Ergebnisse.
Tauriska.
Hamberger,E.,2004:Transdisciplinarity:AScientificEssential.In:AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofScience
1028,p.487496.
Kueffer,Ch,G.HierchHdorn,G.Bammer,L.vanKerkhoffandCh.Pohl,2007:TowardsaPublicationCulturein
TransdisciplinaryResearch.In:GAIA16/1,p.2226.
Lieven,O.andS.Maasen,2007:TransdisziplinreForschung:VorboteeinesNewDealzwischenWissenschaft
undGesellschaft?In:GAIA,16/1,p.3540.
MaxNeef,M.,2005:Foundationsoftransdisciplinarity.In:EcologicalEconomics53,p.516.
Muhar,A.,U.VilsmaierandB.Freyer,2006b:ThePolarityFieldConceptANewApproachforIntegrated
RegionalPlanningandSustainableProcesses.In:GAIA15/3,p.2002005.
Muhar,A.,U.Vilsmaier,M.GlanzerandB.Freyer,2006c:Initiatingtransdisciplinarityinacademiccasestudy
teaching. Experiences from a regional development project in Salzburg, Austria. In: International Journal of
SustainabilityinHigherEducation,7/3,p.293308.
Nicolescu,B.,2002:ManifestoofTransdisciplinarity.NewYork.
Nowotny,H.,1999:Esistso.Esknnteauchanderssein.berdasvernderteVerhltnisvonWissenschaftund
Gesellschaft.(=ErbschaftunsererZeit.VortrgeberdenWissensstandderEpoche,Vol.4)Frankfurta.M.
Scholz,R.W.,2000:Mutuallearningasabasicprincipleoftransdisciplinarity.In.R.W.Scholz,R.Hberli,A.Bill
andM.Welti(Eds.):Transdisciplinarity:Jointproblemsolvingamongscience,technologyandsociety.Workbook
II:Mutuallearningsession.P.1317.

11
ThomsonKlein,J.,W.GrossenbacherMansuy,R.Hberli,A.Bill,R.W.ScholzandM.Welti(Eds.),2001:Joint
ProblemSolvingamongScience,TechnologyandSocietyAnEffectiveWayforManagingComplexity.Basel,
Boston,Berlin.
ThomsonKlein,J.,2004:Prospectsfortransdisciplinarity.In:Futures36,p.515526.
Vilsmaier,U.,B.FreyerandA.Muhar,2005a:TransdisciplinaryGoalFindinginRegionalDevelopmentProcesses.
In: Proceedings Sustainable Development Research Conference 2005 Helsinki, Transdisciplinary Case Study
ResearchGroupETHZrich,p.215226.
Vilsmaier,U.,B.FreyerandA.Muhar,2005b:InterundtransdisziplinreLehrforschung.DasBeispielLeben
2014 Perspektiven der Regionalentwicklung in der Nationalparkregion Hohe Tauern/Oberpinzgau. In: J.
BreusteandM.FromholdEisebith(Eds.):RaumbilderimWandel.(=SalzburgerGeographischeArbeiten,Vol.38),
p.173186.
Wiek,A.,2007:ChallengesofTransdisciplinaryResearchasInteractiveKnowledgeGenerationExperiencesfrom
TransdisciplinaryCaseStudyResearch.In:GAIA1/16,p.5257.

12