outcomes are less certain (Zinsstag et al., 2011b). We need a range of disciplines to understand the context of health (Allotey et al., 2010). For this purpose, the starting point should not be a One Health approach, but the socially relevant health-related problem and its ecological dimensions. Other socially relevant problems are, for example, hunger, poverty, pollution and migration. In practising One Health, we seek practical solutions, which we most often cannot approach from an academic perspective alone. At this point academic scientists engage with non-academic stakeholders and their knowledge in research to solve practical problems and identify causes at their roots. Our experiences in intercultural and multilingual contexts (Nido Films, 2018) point towards a mindful, culturally and gender sensitive approach, paying particular attention to careful translation and interpretation between the different languages spoken (Zinsstag et al., 2019). The growing awareness of the need to embark in transdisciplinary processes to solve complex problems has invigorated the development and delivery of science-based policy in One Health in the past decade (Oura et al., Chapter 28, this volume; Rinchen et al., Chapter 29, this volume).
Trajectories of Transdisciplinary Research since the End of the 20th Century
Progressive fragmentation of the sciences into more and more specialized disciplines and thematic fields in the 20th century led to the perceived major risk that specialization could not recognize possible negative side effects for modern civilization. The growing awareness of such risks stimulated integrative approaches labelled ‘interdisciplinarity’ or ‘transdisciplinarity’ (see below for how we use these terms). Differences between basic, applied and transdisciplinary research, as specific forms of research, stem from whether and how different scientific disciplines and actors in the life-world are involved in problem identification and problem structuring, thus determining how research questions relate to problem fields in the life-world (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008). Transdisciplinarity has become a form of research with the possible association of any discipline. The number of publications using ‘transdisciplinary’ or ‘transdisciplinarity’ has grown rapidly since 1995. The Network for Transdisciplinarity Research (td-net, http://www.transdisciplinarity.ch (accessed 25 May 2020)) publishes these overviews on developments of transdisciplinary research. It was initiated in 2003 by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences to support foresight and the dialogue between science and society. Transdisciplinarity has attracted growing international attention, leading to an international alliance for inter- and transdisciplinarity (http://www.itd-alliance.org (accessed 25 May 2020)) in Gothenburg in 2019 and development of a massive open access online course (MOOC) on transdisciplinarity (https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/partnering-for-change (accessed 25 May 2020)).
Hirsch Hadorn et al. (2008) in their chapter ‘The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research’ and its section ‘From dissociation to transdisciplinary orientation in the knowledge society’, describe the history of transdisciplinary research from Aristotle’s forms of knowledge to today. Transdisciplinarity plays such an important role in One Health that we consider it appropriate to summarize Hadorn’s chapter to provide necessary background without claiming completeness. Natural science in the period since the 17th century has dissociated from philosophy and become concerned with empirical laws. Research is carried out by intervening into nature in technically equipped experimental settings. The concept of positivism postulates that observations are the only source of knowledge. There is a dissociation of science from practical knowledge, or what is also called the life-world. The term ‘life-world’ was introduced by the German philosopher Husserl (1859–1938). In the 19th century the science of society, called sociology, was created. Another German philosopher, Alfred Schütz (1899–1959), introduced the term life-world into sociology as ‘social reality’. The social sciences and humanities put forward the need for interpretation of social and cultural phenomena from an historical perspective. Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) advocated a hermeneutic paradigm to achieve an understanding of cultural ideals. Natural sciences attempt to explain natural phenomena, but hermeneutics attempts to interpret and assign a meaning to social and cultural phenomena from an historical perspective. The debate is about explanation versus meaning.
Sociology was confronted with the social crises of capitalism in the 19th century. The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) recognized practical problems as a stimulus for scientific research. There is an ongoing debate regarding the relationship of empirical science to societal values. Scientists do not limit themselves to describe, for example, poverty; they consider poverty as socially unacceptable and thus do not make a descriptive, strictly scientific, statement, but a normative, value statement. Weber argued that empirical sciences are about what is either true or false, while the normative distinction in the sphere of values is that of right or wrong. Given the progressive fragmentation of the sciences into more and more specialized disciplines and thematic fields, emerging complex phenomena could no longer be recognized, which led to the development of systems theory studies and of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary thinking. When a variety of disciplines collaborate in one research programme without integration of concepts, epistemologies or methodologies – but link research results – we speak of multidisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity is also a collaboration of several disciplines, but concepts or methodologies are explicitly exchanged and integrated, resulting in a mutual enrichment (Flinterman et al., 2001; Darbellay and Paulsen, 2008) within scientific context.
Erich Jantsch (1929–1980) sees the triangle of university–industry–government as a ‘transdisciplinary’ triangle organized by general systems theory. In the second half of the 20th century natural resource crises emerged due to, among other forces, rapid population growth. The Brundtland Report from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development recognized in 1987 that the complexity of the interactions of a ‘Risk society’ (Beck, 1992) and unintended and poorly understood damage to natural resources and lives require systemic thinking across different academic disciplines and involving societal actors like communities and authorities. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 promoted sustainable development by involving people from civil society, the private sector and public agencies as actors in participatory deliberation and decision making. Addressing climate change is a formidable example showing the need for normative negotiation and co-producing transformational knowledge for practical solutions.
Social sciences and humanities became involved in activities such as technology assessment and ethical committees on morally sensitive technologies. Mittelstrass (1992) defines ‘transdisciplinarity’ as a form of research that transcends disciplinary boundaries to address and solve problems related to the life-world. Through scientists entering into dialogue and mutual learning with societal stakeholders, science becomes part of societal processes, contributing explicit and negotiable values and norms in society and science, and attributing meaning to knowledge for societal problem solving (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008).
Based on their historical review, Hirsch
