Transdisciplinarity in Practice: The Emergence and Resolution of Dissonances in Collaborative Research on Brownfield Regeneration

Abstract

The restoration of areas contaminated by industrial or mining activities has been a major issue in environmental research in many European countries since the 1980s, and it also constitutes a major area of research at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research — UFZ. Within this research environment, a consortium consisting of natural and social scientists has developed an EU-funded research project aimed at providing problem- oriented, tailored approaches and technologies for the revitalization of contaminated areas. The approach taken by the project is one that seeks to integrate scientific and non-scientific knowledge. In this paper we show how the idea of joint knowledge production between scientists and non-scientists is pursued in the context of the project. We explore how the rather fuzzy presentation of the transdisciplinary approach in the project proposal opens the door to interpretation and appropriation by scientists and practitioners alike. We describe a number of ad hoc solutions that were deployed to overcome specific dissonances during the collaborative production of knowledge (e.g. substituting common group learning for the single-handed elaboration of concepts by one project partner, or substituting the consultation of external experts for the mere gathering of information). Finally, we show how the interdisciplinary research environment at UFZ enhances the ability of the project team to resolve dissonances, improves collaboration between partners, and increases the innovative potential of project outputs.     

Sociobiology and human nature

Abstract

One of the main theses of sociobiology is that between human beings and the so called 'social' animals there are no qualitative differences, and it is for this reason that it is possible to identify in human beings and social animals essentially similar behaviours, all of which are genetically determined. Sociobiologists often take this idea as a basis for the belief that there exists in the universe an ontological unity that can be understood by means of the scientific empirical method. In this sense, sociobiologists attempt to build a model of human nature in which the fundamental goal of all human action is biological survival, to be understood in terms of the preservation and transmission of genes. In this paper I present a critical approach to these sociobiological theses. Employing a dialectical method, I start from the idea that human beings are qualitatively different from the social animals. Without denying their biological foundations, I affirm that human behavioural characteristics should be understood as products of historical–cultural relations. Even phenomena considered to be the most basic and essential for biological survival, for example diet, rest, and sexuality, possess a fundamental cultural character in which biological survival does not necessarily play an important role. The same can be said of human attitudes towards death and pain. Sociobiology underestimates this historical–cultural dimension of human existence and, despite being a discipline grounded in the theory of evolution, it takes for granted a series of essential principles as unchangeable realities. In this way sociobiology produces an ideological discourse on human nature, a false representation of the world which can be of great utility for legitimising many oppressive and discriminatory practices.