Investigating Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity: How Meta-Ethnography Contributes to the Study of Collaborative Research Practices

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are collaborative research modes that help advance science dealing with grand societal challenges. However, many factors still act as obstacles to high-impact research, showing disconnections between practices and policies. We can reasonably question whether we are still incapable of applying the correct methods to grasp interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary heterogeneity. This article aims to deepen the discussion of the methodological options for critically studying interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. By applying meta-ethnography to the inter- and transdisciplinary academic literature, the paper inquires about the suitability of the method to study bodies of knowledge on interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase literature review type of meta-synthesis aimed at creating new understandings and theories from a body of work. Applying an autoethnographic approach, I show how meta-ethnography allows for the reconceptualisation of a disparate and dispersed body of literature, advancing current discussions on inter- and transdisciplinarity and their roles in science and policy. The approach outlined in the article is innovative because it contributes to two related realms: (i) it helps advance the field of inter- and transdisciplinary research and policy because it refines the methods available to study these multidimensional practices, and (ii) it offers an example of the further adaptability of meta-ethnography to new topics, such as the investigation of collaborative settings. I analyse six challenges in light of the scientific literature and conclude by focusing on the value meta-ethnography has for studying interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and propose two methodological innovations.

Keywords

Interdisciplinarity transdisciplinarity Meta-synthesis Autoethnography Grounded-theory Meta-ethnography Qualitative inquiry

Introduction

Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research are usually associated with the promise that science can solve multidimensional or wicked problems (Klein, 2021). Both have a long history in different research fields but are still not mainstream (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020a). Worldwide, scholars and policymakers are calling for more interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research that can cope with unforeseen current conditions (Bonn et al., 2020; Conroy, 2020; Kaiser & Gluckman, 2023; Stamm, 2019; Wen et al., 2020). Inter- and transdisciplinary collaborative research modes help advance science in dealing with grand societal challenges, such as the crises triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, migration crises or climate change (Wen et al., 2020). By integrating different perspectives, concepts and methods from multiple disciplines and societal actors, interdisciplinarity (ID) and transdisciplinarity (TD) advance the fundamental understanding of or seek solutions to multidimensional problems.

Nevertheless, many factors still act as obstacles to high-impact collaborative research, showing deficiencies and disconnections among practices and policies. As a result, ID and TD¹ are trapped in a pervasive paradox between an encouraging discourse, on the one hand, and relatively inflexible institutional and funding-rewarding systems, on the other hand (Dalton et al., 2022; Weingart, 2000). Yet we can reasonably question whether ID and TD are so elusive because we are still incapable of studying them and applying the correct methods to grasp their heterogeneity and contextual differences.

ID and TD constitute modes of knowledge production, hence requiring different methods to capture their multiple dimensions and dynamics. In addition, there is a ‘pressing need for more rigorous empirical analysis of political and institutional support for interdisciplinarity, and the effects that interdisciplinary collaborations have on researchers, students, organisations and knowledge’ (Frickel et al., 2016, p. 6).

As objects of investigation, ID and TD challenge established methodological approaches and methods and are considered as ill-defined phenomena (MacLeod et al., 2019). They imply a complex body of practices, policies, institutional arrangements, cognitive structures, and social forms, which vary from one case to another (Barry & Born, 2013; MacLeod et al., 2019; MacLeod & Nagatsu, 2018). The methods applied for studying ID and TD range from qualitative to quantitative (MacLeod et al., 2019). Authors from Philosophy of Science (Andersen, 2016; MacLeod et al., 2019), Science, Technology and Society (STS) (e.g., Callard & Fitzgerald, 2015; Calvert, 2013; Silvast & Foulds, 2022) or inter- or transdisciplinary communities (e.g., Klein, 2021; Lyall, 2019; Pohl et al., 2021) have underwent investigations on inter- and transdisciplinary practices. However, there are no studies that applied a meta-ethnography to bodies of literature on ID or TD.

Building on these contributions, this article elaborates on the methods that are better suited to investigate the specific features of collaborative ID and TD. The goal is to initiate a research programme that tests, designs and adapts methods for these phenomena. Investigations of ID and TD provide opportunities to redefine or reinvent the use of methods and conceptual frameworks in evaluating research and innovation and, therefore, can benefit the policy and funding sectors (Lury & Wakeford, 2012). Additionally, the responsiveness of ID and TD to demands for addressing urgent scientific and societal challenges can be improved (Fleurbaey et al., 2018).

A comparison of different accounts of ID and TD allows for a better understanding of these phenomena and their implications for research, practice and policy. The present article examines the contributions meta-ethnography makes to investigations of ID and TD, taking these phenomena as objects of study in their own right. A meta-ethnography review is a seven-phase, theory-based and theory-generating interpretive method for qualitative evidence synthesis developed by sociologists George W. Noblit and R. Dwight Hare (1988). The purpose of the method is to reinterpret primary qualitative research by contributing a new account of individual studies’ findings (Flemming & Noyes, 2021).

Hence, I address the following research question: What challenges and opportunities do meta-ethnography pose when studying the literature on ID and TD? I analyse empirical evidence from two research projects in which meta-ethnographies were conducted to investigate interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary bodies of literature. Based on insights from an autoethnographic exercise examining my role as a meta-ethnographer, I elaborate on six features of meta-ethnography that contribute to better understand ID and TD. When studying interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary bodies of literature, meta-ethnography allows for the reconceptualisation of a disparate and dispersed body of literature, hence advancing the discussions on the value and roles of inter- and transdisciplinary research.

The present study is positioned at the boundaries of the anthropology of science (within science and technology studies) (Hess, 1992). An anthropological study of ID and TD places these collaborative practices—as well as science—within national and international research cultures, showing that these are not naturally given but rather temporal and spatial constructions ‘inextricably symbolically and politically construed’ (Knorr-Cetina, 1995, p. 143).

By applying meta-ethnography to inter- and transdisciplinary academic literature, the present article contributes to the discussion of the suitability of specific methods to study ID and TD and handle the heterogeneity of practices and hidden topics represented in this body of literature (Doyle, 2003; Lury, 2018).

The present article is organised as follows: First, I outline the methods applied. These are divided in two iterative phases. Phase 1 implied an autoethnographic approach developed to study two case projects that conducted a meta-ethnography. Phase 2 corresponded to two cases and their meta-ethnographies following steps developed by Noblit and Hare (1988). These two phases were developed simultaneously and iteratively, enriching each other.

The findings are twofold; I first analyse the six challenges of ID and TD identified in the academic literature. Then, considering the literature on meta-ethnography, I elaborate on how meta-ethnography contributed to the study of ID and TD. This section includes examples from the cases. Next, I discuss the findings, focusing on the necessity, value and limitations of applying a meta-ethnographic approach to studying ID and TD. The conclusions outline the contributions of the current paper and future lines of research.

Methods

In this section, I elaborate on the methods applied in two interrelated phases. In Phase 1, the aims and procedures followed to conduct an auto-ethnography are described. In Phase 2, I elaborate on the steps performed in two meta-ethnographies taken as case studies. These two phases were performed iteratively seeking to observe their interrelatedness and enrichment as the research process was being unfolded. The auto-ethnography was used as an accompanying and complementary method to the meta-ethnography (Andersen, 2016). This also allowed for both ethnographies, the auto- and the meta-, to be audited in different moments.

Phase 1: Autoethnography

Data Collection

The methodological approach consisted of an analytic autoethnography of two research projects. Analytic autoethnography is a form of self-narrative (Denzin, 2014) in which the researcher (i) has a member researcher status, (ii) conducts analytic reflexivity, (iii) has a narrative visibility of the researcher’s self, (iv) has dialogue with informants beyond the self and (v) is committed to theoretical analysis (Anderson, 2006).

I was responsible for the design and development of two meta-ethnographies and contributed specific expertise. This was an ideal context for problematising and self-reflecting on my knowledge on meta-ethnography, my role as a meta-ethnographer and how meta-ethnography contributes to investigating ID and TD (Denzin, 2003). A commitment with theoretical analysis was explicit when conducting both meta-ethnographies, which allowed for a better understanding of ID and TD as social phenomena (Anderson, 2006; Hammersley, 2013). My role as an ethnographer was clear and visible to all project members, with whom I had regular contact in the form of consultations.

The value of the two selected cases lies in the following criteria (Stake, 1995): (i) both meta-ethnographies took ID and TD as objects of research and (ii) aimed at contributing to the policy discussion on how to support them. The guiding question for autoethnography was to identify and analyse the contributions (challenges and opportunities) that meta-ethnography offers when studying the bodies of literature on ID and TD. This contrasts with other meta-ethnographies that usually analyse how interdisciplinary one area is or use an interdisciplinary dataset to enquire about a specific interdisciplinary experience (Bassett et al., 2018).

In the data collection phase, field notes and self-reflexive accounts were kept in all phases of the two meta-ethnographies (Emerson et al., 2001). Additionally, insights were systematised from (i) consultations with researchers and stakeholders associated with the cases (six in total); (ii) team meetings in which the process of meta-ethnography was reflected upon (ten meetings in total); and (iii) presentations at two scientific conferences. Consultations were conducted in semiformal contexts with no predetermined questions. They aimed at ‘commenting back to the autoethnographer’, inquiring about aspects of the research process or method that could be enriched in exchange with other team members (Hughes & Pennington, 2017).

The consultations provided a multi-layered account of the process of meta-ethnographies, while substantiating assemblage as a means to validate the outputs of the auto-ethnographic exercise (Hughes & Pennington, 2017). As a first step of validation, I shared my insights on the process of meta-ethnography with other team members during team meetings or meetings specifically designed to work on it. The aim was to check the reliability of the data collection and the process of my own auto-ethnography (Kirk & Miller, 1986). Hence, data collection resulted from individual and collective learning processes based on systematic self-reflection of the contextualised experiences of the cases (Hughes & Pennington, 2017).

Data Analysis

Grounded theory was used to analyse the data and identify the main characteristics the meta-ethnographies had (Charmaz & Mitchell, 2001). Six features from meta-ethnography were identified as especially relevant when studying the bodies of literature on ID and TD. Table 1 shows an extract of the codebook from the auto-ethnography with the initial relationships between the features of meta-ethnography, the associated literature and the implications for investigating inter- and transdisciplinarity.

Table 1.

Extract of the Codebook From the Auto-Ethnography. It Shows the Relationships Between the Features of meta-Ethnography, the Literature and the Implications for Investigating Inter- and Transdisciplinarity.

	Features of meta-ethnography	Related literature on meta-ethnography	Notes from auto-ethnography
i	Interpretive endeavor to deal with multiplicity	Lee et al. (2015); Kakos and Fritzsche (2017)	Contributes to disentangling the different understandings of ID and TD and identifying factors that hinder or help IDR and TDR
ii	The thickness of a description and depth of scrutiny during synthesis	Pilkington (2018)	Extensive literature review that allows the discovery of common cross-cutting questions on ID and TD
iii	Cross-sites synthesis allows elaborating dilemmas and contradictions	Borgnakke (2017); Atkins et al. (2008)	Inter-cultural approach to IDR and TDR accounts for heterogeneity of the practices and definitions
iv	Comparative understanding	Noblit and Hare (1988); Urrieta (2018); Pilkington (2018); France et al. (2019)	Three groups of literature
v	Inform policy	Urrieta (2018)	More nuanced understandings of ID and TD to be integrated in science policy and funding schemes for IDR and TDR
iv	Challenge understanding and acting, leading to rethinking and empowering	Urrieta and Noblit (2018); Hughes and Noblit (2017)	Reposition ID and TD impact

The validation of my auto-ethnography was continued during the analysis using the consultations with other team members as means to audit the reliability of my findings and continuing the self- and collective reflexive processes on meta-ethnography (Kirk & Miller, 1986). Features in Table 1 were re-discussed in several iterations with the research teams until saturation was achieved (Kirk & Miller, 1986).

Phase 2: Meta-Ethnography and Case Setting

Meta-ethnography implies a distinctive analytic process of translation and synthesis of translations (France et al., 2019; Hammersley, 2013). This process involves systematically comparing conceptual data from primary qualitative studies to identify and develop new overarching concepts, theories or models (France et al., 2019). This is done following seven phases: (1) getting started, (2) deciding what is relevant to the initial interest, (3) reading the studies, (4) determining how the studies are related, (5) translating the studies into one another, (6) synthesising translations and (7) expressing the synthesis (Noblit & Hare, 1988). The product of this synthesis is the translation of studies into one another, which encourages the researcher to understand and transfer ideas, concepts and metaphors across different studies (Britten et al., 2002). The intention of meta-ethnography is to produce a new configuration/interpretation, a new model, conceptual framework or theory (Uny et al., 2017). Thus, it is assumed that, from the cases, it is possible to access a better understanding of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary practices and policies, along with how these are enacted.

I was responsible for conducting the two meta-ethnographies studied in this paper. Data from the cases was collected using an auto-ethnographic approach detailed in Phase 1 of this section. While conducting each of the meta-ethnographies, the process developed within each research team was analysed following the steps and procedures explained above.

The first meta-ethnography was done in the framework of the Horizon2020 project ‘Shaping Interdisciplinary Practices in Europe’ (Shape-ID)², which addressed the challenge of improving cooperation between arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The meta-ethnography focused on identifying the factors that hinder or help inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration and clarifying which are specifically relevant for integrating AHSS.

The second case is an ongoing research project titled ‘Investigating Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity: Intersections of Practices, Culture(s) and Policy in Collaborative Knowledge Production’ (Intersections)³. The goal of this project is to improve inter- and transdisciplinary research to address scientific and societal challenges. The meta-ethnography searched the specific features of ID and TD and the intersections between research, practices and policies.

In both cases, the research teams followed the seven steps detailed by Noblit and Hare (1988). Both meta-ethnographies included accounts from inter- and transdisciplinary literature which conceptualised or practised ID or TD. These accounts obtained from both meta-ethnographies were treated as ethnographic data because researchers in inter- and transdisciplinary settings usually reflect on the collaborative process while conducting research.

For Phases 1 and 2 of the meta-ethnographies, the teams conducted a literature query. Two teams defined sets of keywords and combined them to form complex search strings.⁴ These strings were used to search Web of Science (WOS), Scopus and JSTOR from 1990 to 2021 in Shape-ID and 2000 to 2022 in Intersections. The resulting dataset consisted of 5040 records (including the author, abstract, title, keywords and tags) for Shape-ID (Wciślik et al., 2020b) (Figure 1). A total of 15,171 records were collected for Intersections (Schaltegger & Vienni-Baptista, 2023) (Figure 2). Both teams employed expansive search techniques to add new records published after the databases had been built. These included forward and backward citation tracking of all the included publications (checking their lists of references and searching for new records) and citation alerts from WOS and Scopus.

Figure 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for the Shape-ID project. Based on Vienni-Baptista et al. (2019) and Page et al. (2020).

Figure 2.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for the intersections project. Based on Schaltegger and Vienni-Baptista (2023) and Page et al. (2020).

The results of the literature search were downloaded into Endnote bibliographic software and screened against inclusion/exclusion criteria following ENTREQ principles (Tong et al., 2012). After removing duplicates, a sample was selected based on the titles and abstracts. Following France et al. (2019), this step involved several iterations and discussions with the research teams to assure robustness in the sample. In Shape-ID, the selection contained 942 records (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2019). In Intersections, the team selected 329 records.

In Phase 3, the teams in both cases performed a qualitative content analysis to systematically describe the meaning of the data collected by assigning successive parts of the material to the categories of a coding frame (Schreier, 2014). The categories were based on the principles of grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1998) and were complemented by categorial thinking (Freeman, 2017). For the Shape-ID project, the team qualitatively analysed 112 articles (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020b), whereas the Intersections team analysed 165 articles. Small adaptations to the method because of the large number of studies to be synthesised (Dixon-Woods et al., 2007; Toye et al., 2014) were recorded in memos and included in the fieldnotes of the autoethnography.

During Phase 4 of the meta-ethnography, each team compared the data across selected documents and determined their relationships (Noblit & Hare, 1988). Because of the features of the literature on ID and TD, the relationships between the studies were reciprocal, from which a line of argument was developed (Britten et al., 2002).

In Phase 5, each team conducted a refined comparison of concepts classified according to the categories elaborated in the previous steps. In both projects, the teams grouped the studies according to their focus (i.e., what the studies are about) and then selected common concepts from the studies (i.e., the meaning of their concepts, themes or metaphors) (France et al., 2019). Both proved useful for investigating inter- and transdisciplinary research as different outputs were envisioned from this process.

In Phases 6 and 7, the teams synthesised the translations obtained. The challenges identified from Phase 5 were compared and overarching concepts were selected for further studies (France et al., 2019).

Findings

This section presents findings from two iterative research phases: (i) those obtained from two meta-ethnographies, which identified challenges of ID and TD, and (ii) those resulting from the autoethnography, which showed how specific features of meta-ethnography contribute to a better understanding of the challenges of ID and TD when studying these bodies of literature.

Challenges of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity

In what follows, I elaborate on each of the challenges of ID and TD and their implications for advancing the field based on the two meta-ethnographies taken as cases (Table 2).

Table 2.

Challenges of Inter- and Transdisciplinarity, According to the Academic Literature From Two Meta-ethnographies.

	Challenges of inter- and transdisciplinarity	Description
i	Heterogeneity of understandings	There is currently no dominant definition of inter- or transdisciplinarity. Instead, there is a plurality of understandings, which is not considered or not made use of by research institutions, policymakers and funders.
ii	Diverse purposes and aims	The different motivations and purposes for undertaking or calling for inter- and transdisciplinarity, which impact the national and international policy and practice show substantial differences in their treatment and funding of inter- and transdisciplinary research.
iii	Legitimacy	A lack of perceived legitimacy of inter- and transdisciplinary research as scientifically sound modes of knowledge production and the need to defend ID and TD’s constitutive territory.
iv	Fragmentation and dispersed knowledge	The fragmentation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary communities of practice. They have long traditions, but there are major differences between countries, regions and institutions.
v	Lack of policy learning	A lack of policy learning about how to facilitate inter- and transdisciplinary research, leading to the frequent repetition of recommendations about how to facilitate inter- and transdisciplinary research derived from the academic and grey literature.
vi	Soft voices	A disbalance between AHSS in relation to STEM contributions. The pervasiveness of labels obscures differences between AHSS disciplines in terms of values, contributions to inter- or transdisciplinary research and insights into societal challenges.

Heterogeneity of Understandings

The first challenge relates to the different definitions of the terms interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. They both employ a wide range of institutional arrangements, procedures and methods, accounting for different definitions that are developed and used (Barry & Born, 2013; Lengwiler, 2006; Maasen et al., 2006). This challenge goes beyond the epistemological discussion of which definition is the best to apply. It entails a recognition of the many nuances that theoretical approaches to inter- and transdisciplinary collaborative practices imply and how these are embedded in practice.

In the literature, three discourses summarise the differing conceptualisations of ID and TD (Klein, 2014):

a) The philosophical or transcendence discourse, which aims for the unity of knowledge and transcends the narrowness of disciplinary worldviews and practices;

b) The problem-solving discourse, which is oriented towards instrumental needs, specifically to cope with complex problems; and

c) The critique or transgression discourse, which emerges from a fundamental critique of the system of knowledge and education while also relating to discourses on the democratisation of knowledge.

In the policy literature, the terms ID and TD are widely used but rarely defined (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020b). In the policy literature, many authors do not define inter- and transdisciplinary research but instead use these terms as if their meanings were simple and widely agreed upon. This lack of explicit definitions is problematic because the policy literature often combines an implicit model of inter- and transdisciplinary research that sees them solely as a means for solving societal challenges. The challenge, therefore, is not to arrive at a single definition that obscures the differences in understandings of ID and TD but to build dialogue between different understandings while recognising their differences (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020a, 2022).

To overcome this challenge, meta-ethnography helped to identify nuances in the understandings of ID and TD, put them into value and compared them to one another. Steps 5 and 6 in the meta-ethnography allowed the teams to relate each definition of ID/TD to the specific context in which it has been elaborated upon and developed.

Diverse Purposes and Aims

This second challenge looks at the specific purposes and aims of ID and TD. Different research communities conduct inter- and transdisciplinary research with different goals demanding specific kinds of support (td-net, 2020). There are differences in how ID and TD are institutionalised and funded (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2022). Because of this tendency, the current understanding of inter- and transdisciplinary research practices is still incomplete, with clear disconnections between theory and practice (Hoffmann et al., 2017; Lengwiler, 2006). Researchers have warned about the risk of promoting ‘fake collaborations’ if there is no robust foundation on which to sustain funding policies (Conroy, 2020; Dai, 2020; Leahey, 2018).

To allow different communities to learn from each other, scholars have noted that empirical examinations of ID and TD often take the form of individual case studies, thus limiting the comparability and generalisation of results across cases (Boix Mansilla, 2008; Frickel et al., 2016; Pregerning, 2006). Funders perceive the same problem (Graf, 2019; Stamm, 2019), noting that studies on ID and TD are demanded by the policy sector. To improve the responsiveness of ID and TD to address urgent societal challenges (Fleurbaey et al., 2018), methods to investigate these phenomena need to account for the overarching comparative schemes that allow for cross-learning processes.

Legitimacy

The third challenge relates to the legitimacy of inter- and transdisciplinary research as modes of knowledge production. ID and TD are not yet mainstream and are invisible in many academic spheres (Lawrence et al., 2022). Related problems include: (i) a lack of legitimacy of the team of researchers and actors, such as underrepresentation of relevant actor groups; (ii) a lack of clarity about what role inter- and transdisciplinary research play in relation to political processes; and (iii) difficulty tracking the societal impacts of inter- or transdisciplinary research projects (Lawrence et al., 2022). Accounts for failures in effective inter- and transdisciplinary leadership have indicated scarce resources for collaborative programmes (Boone et al., 2020). Researchers working in inter- and transdisciplinary settings usually find numerous constraints when trying to obtain tenured positions because their work is not professionalised (Guimarães et al., 2019; Lyall, 2019). In a survey among European researchers, participants argued that doing inter- or transdisciplinary research is frequently experienced as a risky career path—particularly for early-career researchers facing a precarious employment market and short-term contracts (Spaapen et al., 2020).

This challenge implies that systematising the features of inter- and transdisciplinary research is an intricate task; scientific papers, reports and internal documents from funding agencies and research organisations randomly and selectively promote the advantages of inter- and transdisciplinary research (Fletcher et al., 2021). Methods to systematise these disparate corpuses of literature need to be flexible enough to uncover best practices and useful recommendations for practicing ID and TD in different contexts.

Fragmentation and Dispersed Knowledge

The inter- and transdisciplinary communities relate to the fourth challenge. Inter- and transdisciplinary research have long traditions in Europe (Jantsch, 1972), the US (Klein, 2021), Latin America (Streck, 2021) and Australia (Bammer et al., 2020). These communities are scattered and divided throughout the globe. Researchers—both senior and early career—often face difficulties finding a community of practice and participating in associations and networks. Inter- and transdisciplinary papers follow this tendency and are published in different journals, partly because of the lack of specialised publications. Researchers often face substantial obstacles when trying to publish their research results (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020b).

Bibliometric studies have shown that indicators, such as journal impact factors, consolidate bias against inter- and transdisciplinary research and can even suppress evidence of their impact on journal rankings (Porter & Rafols, 2009; Rafols et al., 2012; Wagner et al., 2010). Following this tendency, inter- and transdisciplinary research is often less positively evaluated than disciplinary research in peer-review panels for journals and grants (Huutoniemi et al., 2010; Marres & de Rijcke, 2020).

Lack of Policy Learning

The uptake of knowledge and recommendations for inter- and transdisciplinary research do not appear to be widespread (Fletcher et al., 2021). This challenge highlights the lack of learning from the policy and funding sectors on how to facilitate ID and TD. The fact that recommendations in the academic and policy literatures have repeatedly been made results from weak links between these bodies of knowledge (Fletcher et al., 2021). The literature on disciplinary integration does not often refer to academic research on inter- and transdisciplinary research and often contains an implicit assumption that such integration equates to ID. Second, until recently, the literature on inter- and transdisciplinary research has rarely discussed the roles of arts, humanities and social sciences (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020a).

Although a wealth of knowledge is available across the academic and policy literatures, its uptake is small (Fletcher et al., 2021). This may be because it is difficult to access the literature due to the breadth of topics, contexts and sectors that inter- and transdisciplinary research involve. To build bridges across these divides, a greater acknowledgement of good practice examples is recommended (Fletcher et al., 2021).

Soft Voices

The sixth challenge relates to how disciplines interact and the asymmetries that such integration might reproduce. They are not homogenous and have diverse sets of values, pursuing different aims for inter- and transdisciplinary research. These conditions influence the potential interfaces that can be built between AHSS and STEM. Vienni-Baptista et al. (2019) have argued that the AHSS label was unhelpful because the disciplines included were too heterogeneous. The literature also discusses attempts to bridge AHSS and STEM disciplines to overcome the lack of perceived legitimacy of AHSS values. This is reproduced when trying to integrate AHSS into inter- and transdisciplinary research settings because these disciplines are invisible in some realms (soft voices as defined by Lindvig, 2023). Their contributions to inter- and transdisciplinary research differ based on country, context of application and division of academic fields.

How Meta-Ethnography Contributed to the Study of Inter- and Transdisciplinary Challenges

In this section, six features of meta-ethnography are explained showing how these contributed to better understand the challenges of inter- or transdisciplinary research detailed in the previous section (Figure 3). Following Britten et al. (2002), I introduced two innovations in the meta-ethnographic process, which resulted from the iteration of the following principles: (i) continuously clarifying and resolving inconsistencies and tensions during the meta-ethnographic work; (ii) allowing for a progressive problem shift that accompanied the data analysis; and (iii) comparing the field notes from the two cases in each of the meta-ethnography phases (based on Noblit & Hare, 1988). The autoethnographic exercise contributed to reflecting on the methodological decisions made in each phase.

Figure 3.

Challenges of inter- and transdisciplinarity in relation to the features of meta-ethnography and the implications for investigating these phenomena. methodological innovations are marked with *.

These innovations were fundamental in the case studies (marked with * in Figure 3) and implied: (i) classifying specific groups of literature that represent the corpuses of inter- or transdisciplinary knowledge, (ii) integrating a cultural dimension of ID and TD in the two cases helped in enlarging the applicability of meta-ethnographies because nuances among records were identified and (iii) contrasting the different records and searching for productive interactions between academic and policy discourses.

When the challenges of ID and TD can be related to more than one feature of meta-ethnography, connections are identified in the corresponding subsection.

Interpretative Endeavour

Meta-ethnographies use concepts and metaphors as the building blocks for qualitative synthesis (Lee et al., 2015), offering a means of studying heterogeneous understandings of ID and TD. By offering an interpretative endeavour (Lee et al., 2015), in which multiplicity is approached, meta-ethnography is a suitable means to account for nuances that contribute to revaluing collaborative practices. Unlike authors who assume that there should be only one agreed-upon definition of ID and TD, I argue that plural definitions of these terms are useful because they reflect the many ways in which ID and TD are practiced and understood (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2022). Differences between definitions strengthen and help advance inter- and transdisciplinary research in science, policymaking and research funding. They allow for different research formats to better cope with complex problems (Lyall, 2019).

Meta-ethnographies were particularly useful in denoting the differences among understandings, allowing for contextual nuances to be included in the literature reviews. In this way, ‘the use of metaphor implies an attempt by the author(s) of an account to articulate phenomena through the written word, and these articulations must then be interpreted by those conducting a meta-ethnography’ (Lee et al., 2015, p. 347). For example, terms such as ‘borrowing’ (Klein, 2005), ‘bridging’ and ‘building blocks’ (von Wehrden et al., 2019) or ‘boundary object’ (Klein, 2021) were part of the interpretations that authors have used to describe and characterise ID and TD.

In the Shape-ID project, studying these metaphors contributed to addressing the factors that hindered or helped AHSS integration in inter- and transdisciplinary research. A rich picture was elaborated including 25 conditions and examples from different research settings (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020a). This led to a progressive shift to conceptual innovation in the sense that Lee et al. (2015) argued. The authors asserted that syntheses constitute a means of clarifying inconsistencies and tensions regarding the object of research.

Thick Description

The meta-ethnographies conducted in both case studies proved useful for cross-case synthesis and deep scrutiny of the two cases (Borgnakke, 2017). Although ID and TD are still questioned in research and policy as a means of knowledge production, increased interest worldwide has heightened calls for institutionalising the structures that cross the boundaries of expertise (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2022). Cross-site syntheses and thick descriptions constitute suitable means for approaching different practices of ID and TD, helping systematise the lessons learned in institutionalising processes. In the two cases analysed here, ID and TD could not be dissociated from policies and practices across the global landscape of higher education and were influenced by contextual factors (Atkins et al., 2008).

Hence, interculturality was an added aspect of studying ID and TD that was approached through meta-reflection (Beach & Vigo-Arrazola, 2021; Eisenhart, 2017). For example, taxonomies and further classifications addressing the different connotations of ID and TD are important topics that have helped better understand the many forms collaborative practices take. Klein (2017) and Lyall et al. (2011) are just two examples of this. Although Klein offered a flexible taxonomy to which categories can be linked and complemented by each other, Lyall et al. (2011) identified two types of ID: (i) academically oriented and (ii) problem focused.

Another example is the different roles that researchers play in inter- or transdisciplinary research. These are often underpinned by assumptions about the purpose of a collaboration. For instance, Barry et al. (2008) identified three logics embodied in interdisciplinary practices:

1. The logic of accountability is best represented by efforts to introduce forms of knowledge that can be seen as providing ethical or societal oversight in science and technology projects.

2. The logic of innovation understands the purpose of ID as a better understanding of societal needs to enable an industry to address them.

3. The logic of ontology represents efforts to transform the practice of research and training inside and outside academic settings, leading to the identification of novel problems, objects, relations of research and interdisciplinary subjectivities.

The academic literature has also highlighted that inter- and transdisciplinary research practices can create opportunities for disciplines to evolve, challenging intellectual debates emerging at the boundaries of existing disciplines and in the gaps between them while potentially reconfiguring and transforming disciplines (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2019). This transformative potential has strong implications for researchers’ careers (Lyall, 2019).

Cross-Site Synthesis

‘Meta-ethnographies seek a “comparative understanding” rather than an aggregate understanding of cross-context interpretations and synthesis’ (Urrieta, 2018, p. 25). Kakos and Fritzsche (2017) have highlighted that the contribution of meta-ethnography is to expand the conceptualisations of interpretative research and ethnography. A similar aim is pursued in the Intersections project, which seeks to advance novel methods based on ethnographic studies to investigate ID and TD.

Ethnographic studies on the literature on ID and TD contribute to fighting generalisations and help improve the design of more nuanced indicators for inter- and transdisciplinary performances (Marres & de Rijcke, 2020). For example, in the Shape-ID case, meta-ethnography helped identify three groups of literature representing three approaches to the topic (Vienni-Baptista, 2023):

• Studies of ID and TD: This stands for perspectives that consider either term an object of study. Frickel et al. (2016) taxonomise this approach into three categories: (i) ecologies of interdisciplinary knowledge, (ii) phases of interdisciplinary creation and (iii) efforts to find and bridge gaps between disciplines.

• Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies: These labels include publications dealing with inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to certain topics or problems while factoring in theory and methodology. I followed the definition of “interdisciplinary studies” elaborated by Klein & Newell (1997), which implies ‘a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession… [It] draws on disciplinary perspectives and integrates their insights through the construction of a more comprehensive perspective’ (1997, pp. 393–394).

• Case studies: Examples of inter- and transdisciplinary research performed and institutionalised in specific contexts. The focus here is to provide a specific case in which ID or TD are applied, extracting principles and recommendations from different contexts.

Meta-ethnography ‘allowed the synthesis of findings alongside the production of unique case studies interpreted in context’ (Pilkington, 2018, p. 124). The concepts that emerged from the synthesis in the Shape-ID project were not predefined by parameters for comparison rooted in the research design but instead categorised them in new ways. The three groups of literature detailed above were used to identify hidden topics in the literature related to ID and TD, allowing for conceptual development (Dixon-Woods et al., 2007). One of these topics was the need to investigate the methods used to study ID and TD and focus on the methodological and conceptual implications that such selection implies. This inspired a new approach to this problem, which the Intersections project included as a research question (Vienni-Baptista, 2022).

Comparative Understanding

To overcome the challenge of fragmented knowledge of inter- and transdisciplinary practices and policies, meta-ethnography was found to be useful in achieving thick descriptions of the two cases.

For example, in the Shape-ID project, the team selected readings based on an extensive literature review comprising bibliometric methods (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2019). After building a robust sample of the literature, the team aligned qualitative and quantitative methods to map the understanding of inter- and transdisciplinary research. Datasets were created by querying scientific citation databases, as supplemented by bibliographies of the inter- and transdisciplinary literature (Wciślik et al., 2020a, 2020b)⁵.

During the meta-ethnography, I critically examined sources to (i) map different approaches to the same topic across the academic literature corpus and (ii) bring together different theoretical perspectives (Burgers et al., 2019). As a result, I initially built six qualitative dimensions that accounted for the relationships and main questions related to ID and TD (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020a):

• What? What are the definitions of ID and TD and their conceptualisation, including how the disciplines are understood and how they relate to ID and TD?

• Who? Which researchers, funders, policymakers, communities, teams and other stakeholders develop or contribute to inter- and transdisciplinary research?

• How? Which methods and tools are used to achieve inter- and transdisciplinary research, particularly for integration?

• Why? What are the motivations and logics behind undertaking or supporting inter- and transdisciplinary research?

• When? What timeframes are dedicated to inter- and transdisciplinary research practices?

• Where? What are the spaces for inter- and transdisciplinary research that establish the institutional contexts for individual or collective endeavours?

In Phase 5, I refined the comparison of concepts classified according to these six dimensions and reorganised the data into an overarching map of relations (Felt et al., 2016). This resulted in 10 guiding questions comprising the initial pillars of a heuristic tool designed to bridge academic and policy understandings of ID and TD (Vienni-Baptista & Pohl, 2023).

Informing Policy

Meta-ethnographies are a means of contributing to alternative theories (interpretations of interpretations) to inform policy in a more nuanced way (Urrieta, 2018). In the Shape-ID case, the team analysed the connections (or lack thereof) between the academic and policy literatures on ID and TD (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2022). One of the aims of the project was to inform policy about the current problems and pervasive obstacles that AHSS integration faces in inter- and transdisciplinary research. Moreover, based on the findings from the meta-ethnography, the Shape-ID team made the case that disconnections between the academic and policy literatures have wider significance for institutions and individuals (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2022).

Meta-ethnography helped dissolve this gap by informing policy in a nuanced way. The outputs were two policy briefs elaborated on for EU funders and policymakers advocating for plural understandings of ID and TD to be recognised in policy (Fletcher et al., 2021; Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020b). The meta-ethnographic approach provided detailed concepts and examples from each of the different understandings. A third output was the collaboration with the League of European Research Universities (LERU) to include some of the findings in their report ‘Implementing Interdisciplinarity in Research-Intensive Universities: Good Practices and Challenges’ (Wernli & Ohlmeyer, 2023). In this report, some of the findings from the meta-ethnography provided evidence of the multiple aims and purposes that collaborative practices foster while acknowledging funding challenges.

Rethinking and Empowerment

Positionality is a relevant feature of meta-ethnography (Urrieta & Noblit, 2018) because it shows that synthesis can be empowering and, in so doing, can enhance the impact of ID and TD. Reflexivity accompanies the synthesis in meta-ethnographic work (Hughes & Noblit, 2017) because it has ‘(…) the power to challenge everyday ways of understanding and acting and lead to rethinking how we understand and act’ (Urrieta & Noblit, 2018, p. 263).

In the two cases analysed, it was possible to prove that unclear or divergent definitions of ID and TD influence research practices, hindering the full potential of collaborative research. Differences between ideal descriptions of inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration are influenced by policy agendas, funding calls and evaluation practices that are defined by management (Fitzgerald et al., 2014; Lindvig & Hillersdal, 2019). The disconnection between discourses in academia and policy reproduces power imbalances and hinders inter- and transdisciplinary research in achieving new types of impact (Molas-Gallart et al., 2014).

In these contexts, the promises of ID and TD successfully addressing grand challenges remain unfulfilled, and participation is reduced to a rhetoric that does not fully represent the different processes of integration being carried out (Hoffmann et al., 2017). This means that not all inter- and transdisciplinary practices are the same, but different relations between disciplines in a collaboration can be understood as taking one of several forms (Barry et al., 2008). In the Shape-ID case, Barry et al.’s (2008) models were used as a basis to study the metaphors of types of collaborations between disciplines:

• ‘Subordination–service’ relationship, in which one or more disciplines occupy a subordinate or service role that is conceived as making up for an absence or lack in others.

• ‘Integrative–synthesis’ relations, in which disciplines are integrated more symmetrically.

• ‘Agonistic–antagonistic’ relationship, in which a commitment to more radical shifts in knowledge practices occurs via collaboration.

When investigating ID and TD, meta-ethnography helped build new narratives that acknowledge different types of productive interactions (Muhonen et al., 2020). In this way, the method was useful for integrating soft voices (Lindvig, 2023), which are not usually included in policymaking processes. In the Shape-ID project, the team selected case studies in which AHSS was successfully integrated into inter- and transdisciplinary research to give visibility to projects led by researchers from these disciplines (Fletcher et al., 2021).

In the Intersections project, meta-ethnography has disclosed a set of intersections between practice and policy in inter- and transdisciplinary research that are usually hidden as a means to overcome institutional barriers to this type of research (Vienni-Baptista, 2022). These intersections are currently being studied further and complemented by the ethnography of three research centres in Switzerland.

Discussion

Inter- and transdisciplinarity have become important contemporary contexts for scientific knowledge production and innovation (Bammer et al., 2020). However, ID/TD do not achieve their full potential as they are poorly understood and supported (Lyall, 2019). One of the causes of such a situation is the lack of methods to study these phenomena that account for the complexities and nuances that these types of research imply.

Following contributions by MacLeod et al. (2019) and Marres and de Rijcke (2020), I positioned myself in the intersection between STS and anthropology of science to re-think how to investigate the academic literature on inter- and transdisciplinary collaborative practices. To contribute to the discussion on which methods are better suited to study inter- and transdisciplinarity, I combined the insights from an auto-ethnographic exercise to explore the challenges and opportunities that meta-ethnography offers in studying these bodies of literature.

By examining those challenges and opportunities, I elaborate on six features of meta-ethnography: (i) offers an interpretative endeavour, together with a (ii) thick description of the contexts in which inter- and transdisciplinary research are conducted; (iii) it is founded on a cross-site synthesis and (iv) comparative understandings of ID and TD as social phenomena leveraging their roles in addressing societal challenges; (v) outputs from meta-ethnographies inform policy and (vi) helps to rethink and empower different societal actors and disciplines.

In what follows, I discuss four opportunities the method offered when investigating inter- and transdisciplinary bodies of literature. In the cases analysed here, meta-ethnography produced deeper insights and new pathways to overcome fragmentation and dispersion in the literature on ID and TD.

First, meta-ethnography was applied to large bodies of literature on ID/TD (Noblit, 2018; Noblit & Hare, 1988). Complex search strings were developed for the data collection phase in the two cases (Schaltegger & Vienni-Baptista, 2023; Wciślik et al., 2020a). The alignment of the goals of meta-ethnography were constantly reframed using auto-ethnography to guarantee the grounding of the method (France et al., 2019). This implied testing the method to study topics which have not yet been investigated using meta-ethnography. The unique opportunity offered by meta-ethnography was to grasp new dimensions within the data, grouping the records under new topics (Germeni et al., 2021). As shown, outputs of one of the case studies inform policy highlighting nuances in the definitions of ID and TD. The previous tendency was to provide normalised definitions to the policy sector, avoiding a “thick description” of terms (Graf, 2019).

Second, meta-ethnography is:

distinguished from other forms of qualitative meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis because it allows for the study of interconnectedness, as conducted through a process that remains consistent with the interpretative nature of qualitative research. (Kakos & Fritzsche, 2017, p. 129, p. 129)

This is of special relevance because meta-ethnography helps find hidden relationships in a fragmented body of literature. As accounts of inter- or transdisciplinary research are usually based on case studies (Boix Mansilla, 2008), meta-ethnography offers a means to build “cross-site synthesis” that allows elaborating dilemmas and contradictions among cases (Atkins et al., 2008; Borgnakke, 2017). “Cross-sited synthesis needs critical meta-reflections where both the theoretical, empirical and ethnomethodological issue can be reflected’ (Borgnakke, 2017, p. 198). This constitutes a unique feature of meta-ethnography in comparison to other types of literature reviews (Xiao & Watson, 2019). As shown in the sections titled “cross-site synthesis” and “comparative understanding”, meta-ethnography contributed to relate similar accounts and lessons learnt from two case studies. The same procedure can be further elaborated in future studies while adding other cases to this comparison.

Third, three methodological innovations were tested and proved useful in the case studies to better adapt the method to bodies of literature on ID and TD (Toye et al., 2014). The innovations (marked with * in Figure 3) allowed to:

(i) Classify new groups of literature on ID/TD: by means of the meta-ethnography the teams differentiated the academic and policy discourses on ID/TD, seeking a ‘comparative understanding rather than an aggregate understanding of cross-context interpretations and synthesis’ (Urrieta, 2018, p. 25). This proved relevant as the literature of ID/TD has not yet been fully studied (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2022).

(ii) Apply a cultural approach to ID and TD: this innovation helped enlarging the applicability of both meta-ethnographies. Dimensions such as power, norms and values were added to the coding phase in the analysed cases (see the sub-section on “rethinking and empowerment”).

(iii) Identify productive interactions in inter- and transdisciplinary research: different practices and expertise as well as institutionalising processes were compared and studied as thick descriptions of research experiences (Borgnakke, 2017). Connections between the academic and policy discourses on collaborative practices were further also elaborated (see for instance, Vienni-Baptista & Pohl, 2023).

Fourth, with the findings from the two cases, ‘meta-ethnographies (…) speak back to the qualitative methods (…)’ (Urrieta & Noblit, 2018, p. 265). Inter- and transdisciplinary bodies of literature, as shown in this article, entail pervasive challenges and constitute complex samples to study. Innovations to meta-ethnography may constitute an example to further elaborate on its potential as a method (Noblit, 2018). For the inter- and transdisciplinary communities, meta-ethnography can become a useful tool to approach not only the challenges of collaborative practices but also to consolidate a repository of methods to investigate them (Vienni-Baptista, 2022). Meta-ethnography, as a type of meta-synthesis, offers a tool that accounts for nuances and cross-site comparisons (Xiao & Watson, 2019). As Britten et al. (2002) argue, meta-ethnography allows for drawing conclusions based on the comparison of dissimilar contexts. For inter- and transdisciplinary bodies of literature, this is of special interest as case studies are conducted in different settings and are based on contextuality (Boix Mansilla, 2008). A method to synthesise this disparity may bring new research questions to collaborative practices and new ways of understanding the potentials ID and TD (Noblit & Hare, 1988).

Meta-ethnographies applied to ID and TD had two limitations worth noting. First, the two cases were specifically designed to advise policy and research funding for European landscapes, not those in other regions. The teams included records from other continents because of their influence on and connection with the literature, but papers in languages other than English were not analysed.

Second, the implications of using meta-ethnography to study this body of literature might be enriched if policy documents are included. This does not contradict the enhancements offered here, but such a study may address policy gaps and build strong communication with policymakers and funders who are dealing with the challenges of inter- and transdisciplinary research.

Conclusion

In the present article, I have explored the challenges of synthesising qualitative research on inter- and transdisciplinary research by reflecting on the necessity, value and opportunities of applying a meta-ethnographic approach. The aim of consolidating a new research programme for investigating ID and TD benefits from this type of study because it extends and develops the scope of ethnographic studies of science and technology (Hess, 1992; Traweek, 1988) by investigating unexplored collaborative research practices.

The outputs of the present study are applicable to new cases and contexts and may be included in toolboxes focused on inter- and transdisciplinary research.⁶ They also contribute to the current policy discussions on ID and TD by synthesising the main lessons and best practices (Vienni-Baptista, 2022). As Noblit stated, ‘Meta-ethnography continues to develop and change with each iteration’ (2018, p. 45). I consider this an initial step to deepening the knowledge of inter- and transdisciplinary research and to help disentangling the complexities these types of research imply.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the support from Anne-Sophie Schaltegger (ETH Zurich) and Lisa Brombach (ETH Zurich) who contributed to the meta-ethnography conducted in the Intersections project. This study analyses the experiences the author had in two research projects: (i) “Shaping interdisciplinary practices in Europe” (SHAPE-ID) (European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, grant agreement No. 822705, period 2019-2021), and (ii) “Investigating interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: intersections of practices, culture(s) and policy in collaborative knowledge production” (Intersections) (Swiss National Science Foundation, Programme Prima, Grant No. 201582, period 2022–2026).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: project “Investigating interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: intersections of practices, culture(s) and policy in collaborative knowledge production” (Intersections), Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), Programme PRIMA, Grant No. 201582, period 2022–2026.

ORCID iD

Bianca Vienni-Baptista

Notes

References

Andersen

(2016). Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A(56), 1–10.

Anderson

(2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449

Atkins

Lewin

Smith

Engel

Fretheim

Volmink

(2008). Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(21), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-21.

Bammer

O’Rourke

O’Connell

Neuhauser

Midgley

Klein

J. T.

Grigg

N. J.

Gadlin

Elsum

I. R.

Bursztyn

Fulton

E. A.

Pohl

Smithson

Vilsmaier

Bergmann

Jaeger

Merkx

Vienni-Baptista

Burgman

M. A.

Richardson

G. P.

(2020). Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: When is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0

Barry

Born

(2013). Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences, Routledge.

Barry

Born

Weszkalnys

(2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841

Bassett

Bingley

A. F.

Brearley

S. G.

(2018). Silence as an element of care: A meta-ethnographic review of professional caregivers' experience in clinical and pastoral settings. Palliative Medicine, 32(1), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317722444

Beach

Vigo-Arrazola

M. B.

(2021). Critical ethnographies of education and for social and educational transformation: A meta-ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(6), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420935916

Boix Mansilla

(2008). Patterned diversity in interdisciplinary dialogues: Lessons from an empirical study from “frontiers of science” at Columbia university. In Darbellay

Cockell

Billotte

Waldvogel

(Eds.), A vision of transdisciplinarity. Laying foundations for a world knowledge dialogue (pp. 137–147). EPFL Press.

10.

Boone

C. G.

Pickett

S. T. A.

Bammer

Bawa

Dunne

J. A.

Gordon

I. J.

Hart

Hellmann

Miller

New

Ometto

J. P.

Taylor

Wendorf

Agrawal

Bertsch

Campbell

Dodd

Janetos

Mallee

(2020). Preparing interdisciplinary leadership for a sustainable future. Sustainability Science, 15(6), 1723–1733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00823-9

11.

Borgnakke

(2017). Meta-ethnography and systematic reviews – linked to the evidence movement and caught in a dilemma. Ethnography and Education, 12(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2016.1253027

12.

Britten

Campbell

Pope

Donovan

Morgan

Pill

(2002). Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: A worked example. Health Services Research Policy, 7(4), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581902320432732

13.

Burgers

Brugman

B. C.

Boeynaems

(2019). Systematic literature reviews: Four applications for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.004.

14.

Callard

Fitzgerald

(2015). Rethinking interdisciplinarity across the social sciences and neurosciences. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

15.

Calvert

(2013). Collaboration as a research method? Navigating social scientific involvement in synthetic biology. In Doorn

Schuurbiers

van de Poel

Gorman

(Eds.), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (pp. 1–13). Dordrecht.

16.

Charmaz

Mitchell

(2001). Grounded theory in ethnography. In Atkinson

Coffey

Delamont

Lofland

(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 160–174). Sage.

17.

Conroy

(2020). The push for interdisciplinary teams can lead to fake collaborations. Funding methods encourage dubious behaviors. Nature index. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/push-interdisciplinary-teams-science-research-can-lead-fake-collaborations

18.

Corbin

Strauss

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage.

19.

Dai

(2020). What are fake interdisciplinary collaborations and why do they occur? It’s not always intentional. Nature index. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/what-are-fake-interdisciplinary-collaborations-and-why-do-they-occur

20.

Dalton

Wolff

Bekker

(2022). Interdisciplinary research as a complicated system complicated system. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, Article 160940692211003. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221100397

21.

Denzin

N. K.

(2003). Performing [auto] ethnography politically, the review of education. Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 25(3), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714410390225894

22.

Denzin

N. K.

(2014). Interpretive autoethnography (vol. 17). Sage. Qualitative Research Methods.

23.

Dixon-Woods

Booth

Sutton

A. J.

(2007). Synthesizing qualitative research: A review of published reports. Qualitative Research, 7(3), 375–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107078517

24.

Doyle

L. H.

(2003). Synthesis through meta-ethnography: Paradoxes, enhancements and possibilities. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794103033003

25.

Eisenhart

(2017). A matter of scale: Multi-scale ethnographic research on education in the United States. Ethnography and Education, 12(2), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2016.1257947

26.

Emerson

R. M.

Fretz

R. I.

Shaw

(2001). Participant observation and field notes. In Atkinson

Coffey

Delamont

Lofland

(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 352–368). Sage.

27.

Felt

Igelsböck

Schikowitz

Völker

(2016). Transdisciplinary sustainability research in practice. Between imaginaries of collective experimentation and entrenched academic value orders. Science, Technology and Human Values, 41(4), 732–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915626989

28.

Fitzgerald

Littlefield

Knudsen

Tonks

Dietz

(2014). Ambivalence, Equivocation and the Politics of Experimental Knowledge: A Transdisciplinary Neuroscience Encounter. Social Studies of Science, 44(5), 701–721.

29.

Flemming

Noyes

(2021). Qualitative evidence synthesis: Where are we at? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, Article 160940692199327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993276

30.

Fletcher

Lyall

Wallace

(2021). Pathways to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: The SHAPE-ID toolkit. Policy brief. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4922825

31.

Fleurbaey

Bouin

Salles-Djelic

M. L.

Kanbur

Nowotny

Reis

(2018). A manifesto for social progress. Ideas for a better society. International panel on social progress. Cambridge University Press.

32.

France

E. F.

Cunningham

Ring

Uny

Duncan

E. A. S.

Jepson

Maxwell

Roberts

R. J.

Turley

Booth

Britten

Flemming

Gallagher

Garside

Hannes

Lewin

Noblit

G. W.

Pope

Thomas

Noyes

(2019). Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0

33.

Freeman

(2017). Modes of thinking for qualitative data analysis. Routledge.

34.

Frickel

Mathieu

Prainsack

(2016). Introduction. Investigating interdisciplinarities. In Frickel

Mathieu

Prainsack

(Eds.), Investigating interdisciplinary collaboration: Theory and practice across disciplines (pp. 5–24). Rutgers University Press.

35.

Germeni

Garside

Frost

Rogers

Britten

(2021). Can a meta- ethnography be updated by different reviewers? Reflections from a recent update. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, Article 160940692110464. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211046431

36.

Graf

(2019). Bringing concepts together: Interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and SSH integration. Journal of Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, 48, 33–36.

37.

Guimarães

M. H.

Pohl

Bina

Varanda

(2019). Who is doing inter- and transdisciplinary research, and why? An empirical study of motivations, attitudes, skills, and behaviours. Futures, 112, 102441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102441.

38.

Hammersley

(2013). The myth of research-based policy and practice. Sage.

39.

Hess

D. J.

(1992). Introduction: The new ethnography and the anthropology of Science and technology. In Hess

D. J.

Layne

(Eds.), Knowledge and society volume 9: The anthropology of science and technology (pp. 1–27). JAI Press.

40.

Hirsch Hadorn

Hoffman-Riem

Biber-Klemm

Grossenbacher-Mansuy Joye

Pohl

Wiesmann

Zemp

(2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer.

41.

Hoffmann

Pohl

Hering

(2017). Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Research Policy, 46(3), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004

42.

Hughes

Noblit

(2017). Meta-ethnography of autoethnographies: A worked example of the method using educational studies. Ethnography and Education, 12(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2016.1216322

43.

Hughes

Pennington

(2017). Autoethnography. Process, product and possibility for critical social research. Sage.

44.

Huutoniemi

Klein

J. T.

Bruun

Hukkinen

(2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011

45.

Jantsch

(1972). Inter- and transdisciplinary university: A systems approach to education and innovation. Higher Education, 1, 7–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01956879.

46.

Kaiser

Gluckman

(2023). Looking at the future of transdisciplinary research. Discussion paper. Centre for Science Futures. International Science Council. Accessed on Jule 2023:https://futures.council.science/publications/transdisciplinary, https://doi.org/10.24948/2023.05.

47.

Kakos

Fritzsche

(2017). Meta-ethnography E&E. Ethnography and Education, 12(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2017.1278578

48.

Kirk

Miller

M. L.

(1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage. Qualitative research methods series 1.

49.

Klein

J. T.

(2005). Humanities, culture, and interdisciplinarity: The changing American academy. State University of New York Press.

50.

Klein

J. T.

(2014). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007

51.

Klein

J. T.

(2017). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 15–30). Oxford University Press.

52.

Klein

J. T.

(2021). Beyond interdisciplinarity: Boundary work, communication and collaboration. Oxford University Press.

53.

Klein

J. T.

Newell

W. H.

(1997). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In Gaff

J. G.

Ratcliff

J. F.

, & Associates (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices and change (pp. 393–415). Jossey-Bass.

54.

Knorr-Cetina

(1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In Jasanoff

(Ed.), Handbook of science and technology studies (p. 832). Sage Publications.

55.

Lawrence

M. G.

Williams

Nanz

Renn

(2022). Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth, 5(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010

56.

Leahey

(2018). The perks and perils of interdisciplinary research. European Review, 26(S2), S55–S67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798718000261

57.

Lee

R. P.

Hart

R. I.

Watson

R. M.

Rapley

(2015). Qualitative synthesis in practice: Some pragmatics of meta-ethnography. Qualitative Research, 15(3), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114524221

58.

Lengwiler

(2006). Between charisma and heuristics: Four styles of interdisciplinarity. Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778821

59.

Lindvig

(2023). Loud and soft voices of interdisciplinarity in higher education. In Øland

Sauzet

Ryberg

M. L.

Lindvig

(Eds.), Configurations of interdisciplinarity within education. Danish experiences in a global educational space (pp. 94–113). Routledge.

60.

Lindvig

Hillersdal

(2019). Strategically unclear? Organising interdisciplinarity in an excellence programme of interdisciplinary research in Denmark. Minerva, 57(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9361-5

61.

Lury

(2018). Introduction: Activating the present of interdisciplinary methods. In Lury

Fensham

Heller-Nicholas

Lammes

Last

Michael

Upruchard

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 1–23). Routledge.

62.

Lury

Wakeford

(2012). Inventive methods. The happening of the social. Routledge.

63.

Lyall

(2019). Being an interdisciplinary academic. How institutions shape university careers. Palgrave Pivot.

64.

Lyall

Bruce

Tait

Meagher

(2011). Interdisciplinary research journeys: Practical strategies for capturing creativity. Bloomsbury Academic.

65.

Maasen

Lengwiler

Guggenheim

(2006). Introduction: Practices of transdisciplinary research: Close(r) encounters of science and society. Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778830

66.

MacLeod

Merz

Mäki

Nagatsu

(2019). Investigating interdisciplinary practice: Methodological challenges (Introduction). Perspectives on Science, 27(4), 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_e_00315, https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/731495

67.

MacLeod

Nagatsu

(2018). What does interdisciplinarity look like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environmental sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 67, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.001.

68.

Marres

de Rijcke

(2020). From indicators to indicating interdisciplinarity: A participatory mapping methodology for research communities in-the-making. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00062

69.

Molas-Gallart

Tang

Rafols

(2014). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and impact: Different modalities of interdisciplinarity lead to different types of impact (p. 6684). ArXiv, abs/1412.

70.

Muhonen

Benneworth

Olmos-Peñuela

(2020). From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz003

71.

National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; Institute of Medicine; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (NAS) . (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. The National Academies Press.

72.

Noblit

G. W.

(2018). Meta-ethnography. Adaptation and return. In UrrietaJr.

Noblit

G. W.

(Eds.), Cultural constructions of identity. Meta-ethnography and theory (pp. 35–50). Oxford University Press.

73.

Noblit

G. W.

Hare

R. D.

(1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (vol. 11), Sage.

74.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

Moher

(2020). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(160), n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

75.

Pilkington

(2018). Employing meta-ethnography in the analysis of qualitative data sets on youth activism: A new tool for transnational research projects? Qualitative Research, 18(1), 108–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117707805

76.

Pohl

Klein

J. T.

Hoffmann

Mitchell

Fam

(2021). Conceptualising transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science and Policy, 118(April 2021), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.005.

77.

Porter

A. L.

Rafols

(2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2

78.

Pregernig

(2006). Transdisciplinarity viewed from Afar: Science-policy assessments as forums for the creation of transdisciplinary knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778867

79.

Rafols

Leydesdorff

O’Hare

Nightingale

Stirling

(2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business and management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015

80.

Schaltegger

A. S.

Vienni-Baptista

(2023). Intersections: Literature review search strings for Web of science, Scopus and JSTOR. ‘Investigating interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: Intersections of practices, culture(s) and policy in collaborative knowledge production’. ETH Research Collection.

81.

Schreier

(2014). Ways of doing qualitative content analysis: Disentangling terms and terminology. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(1), 2043. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.1.2043

82.

Silvast

Foulds

(2022). Sociology of interdisciplinarity. The dynamics of Energy research. Palgrave MacMillan.

83.

Spaapen

Vienni-Baptista

Buchner

Pohl

(2020). Report on survey among interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary researchers and post-survey interviews with policy stakeholders. Scientific report, manuscript. Shaping interdisciplinary practices in Europe. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3824727

84.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

85.

Stamm

(2019). Interdisciplinarity put to test: Science policy rhetoric vs scientific practice – the case of integrating the social sciences and humanities in Horizon 2020. In Simon

Kuhlmann

Stamm

Canzler

(Eds.), Handbook of science and public policy (pp. 376–399). Edward Elgar Publishing.

86.

Streck

D. R.

(2021). Transdisciplinarity as a decolonizing research practice: A Latin American perspective. Diálogos Latinoamericanos, 29, 88–100. https://doi.org/10.7146/dl.v29i0.120252.

87.

td-net . (2020). Transdisciplinarity. https://www.transdisciplinarity.ch/en/td-net/Aktuell/tdnet-News.html

88.

Tong

Flemming

McInnes

Oliver

Craig

(2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181.

89.

Toye

Seers

Allcock

Briggs

Carr

Barker

(2014). Meta-ethnography 25 years on: Challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-80.

90.

Traweek

(1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes. The world of high energy physicists. Harvard University Press.

91.

Uny

France

Noblit

G. W.

(2017). Steady and delayed: explaining the different development of meta-ethnography in health care and education. Ethnography and Education, 12(2), 243–257.

92.

Urrieta

(2018). Cultural identity theory and education: What we have learned about selves and others. In Urrieta

Noblit

(Eds.), Cultural constructions of identity. Meta-ethnography and theory (pp. 1–33). Oxford University Press.

93.

Urrieta

Noblit

G. W.

(2018). Theorizing identity from qualitative synthesis. In Urrieta

Noblit

G. W.

(Eds.), Cultural constructions of identity. Meta-ethnography and theory (pp. 247–267). Oxford University Press.

94.

Vienni-Baptista

(2022). Cultural studies of collaborative science: Disentangling interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary cultures, practices and policies. Habilitation Thesis, Manuscript, ETH Zurich. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/577414

95.

Vienni-Baptista

(2023). Disentangling Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity: the beauty of differing definitions. In Pombo, O., Gätner, K. & Jesuino, J. (eds.). Theory and Practice in the Interdisciplinary Production and Reproduction of Scientific Knowledge. Interdisciplinarity in the XXI Century (1st ed., 31, pp. 59–72). Springer.

96.

Vienni-Baptista

Fletcher

Lyall

Pohl

(2022). Embracing heterogeneity: Why plural understandings strengthen interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Science and Public Policy, 49(6), 865–877, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac034

97.

Vienni-Baptista

Lyall

Ohlmeyer

Spaapen

Wallace

Pohl

(2020b). Improving pathways to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research for the arts, humanities and social sciences: First lessons from the SHAPE-ID project. Policy brief. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3824954

98.

Vienni-Baptista

Maryl

Wciślik

Fletcher

Buchner

Pohl

(2019). Preliminary report of literature review on understandings of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Scientific report, manuscript. Shaping interdisciplinary practices in Europe.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3760417

99.

Vienni-Baptista

Maryl

Wciślik

Fletcher

Buchner

Pohl

(2020a). Final report on understandings of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and factors of success or failure. Scientific report, manuscript. Shaping interdisciplinary practices in Europe.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3760417

100.

Vienni-Baptista

Pohl

(2023). Exploring Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity as Knowledge Regimes: A Heuristic Tool for Disentangling Understandings in Academia and Policy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243923121678

101.

von Wehrden

Guimarães

M. H.

Bina

Varanda

Lang

D. J.

John

Gralla

Alexander

Raines

White

Lawrence

(2019). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: Finding the common ground of multi-faceted concepts. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0594-x

102.

Wagner

C. S.

Roessner

J. D.

Bobb

Klein

J. T.

Boyack

K. W.

Keyton

Rafols

Börner

(2010). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004

103.

Wciślik

Maryl

Vienni-Baptista

Schriber

(2020a). SHAPE-ID literature review query strings for Web of Science and Scopus. Dataset. Shaping interdisciplinary practices in Europe. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4034333

104.

Wciślik

Maryl

Vienni-Baptista

Schriber

(2020b). SHAPE-ID literature review dataset: Bibliography on IDR/TDR. Dataset. Shaping interdisciplinary practices in Europe. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4034507

105.

Weingart

(2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In Weingart

Sterh

(Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 23–40). University of Toronto Press.

106.

Wen

Wang

Kozak

Liu

Hou

(2020). Many brains are better than one: The importance of interdisciplinary studies on COVID-19 in and beyond tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 46(2), 310–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1761120

107.

Wernli

Ohlmeyer

(2023). Implementing interdisciplinarity in research- intensive universities: Good practices and challenges. League of European Research Universities. Advice Paper No. 30 (March 2023). https://www.leru.org/files/Publications/Implementing-interdisciplinarity-in-research-intensive-universities-good-practices-and-challenges_Full-paper.pdf

108.

Xiao

Watson

(2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456.X17723971