State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries

State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries Working Paper 1-2025 by the Working Group on the Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research, Society for Transdisciplinary and Participatory Research (GTPF e.V.) Authors: Gabriela Michelini, Matthias Bergmann, Thomas Jahn, Alexandra Lux for the editorial team of the State of the Art by the GTPF Working Group Working Group on the Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research. The editorial team for the State-of-the-Art report: Tamara Avellan, Matthias Bergmann, Bettina Brohmann, Peter Dietrich, Bert Droste-Franke, Dominik Düber, Thomas Jahn, Silke Kleihauer, Alexandra Lux, Gabriela Michelini, Jessica Nuske, Sara Saba, Roman Seidl, Katja Treichel-Grass. We also thank other commentators from the working group: Maria Busse. This GTPF Working Paper was originally published in German https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16753169 May 2025 Working paper 1-2025 State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries Abstract This paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge (State-of-the-Art) regarding quality criteria in transdisciplinary research. Due to the regional focus of the GTPF, the emphasis was placed on the German-speaking discourse. To create this State-of-the-Art, a literature review was conducted, combining a systematic search in SCOPUS with an examination of the literature collections from the project SHAPE-ID and the database INTERSECTIONS. From these sources, only texts authored by individuals affiliated with institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland were considered. The selected documents were distributed to the 14 experts of the StoA editorial group, who were involved in the preparation of this report, in order to categorise them according to the following evaluation categories: • Analytical Dimension: What makes transdisciplinary research distinctive? • Normative Dimension: According to which criteria is it assessed? • Practical Dimension: How is it assessed? The results include several key elements identified in the selected literature beyond the evaluation categories we defined: 1. The demand for transdisciplinary research (TDR) are steadily increasing. 2. The existing logics and procedures of the scientific system are often difficult to reconcile with the requirements and peculiarities of TDR. 3. Different and competing understandings of science and scientific work collide, with significant implications for careers and funding opportunities for research projects, working groups, and individual researchers. 4. The inadequacy of index-based evaluations with performance indicators for assessing TDR necessitates a critical examination of existing standards. 5. Another focus in the German-speaking discourse on the qualities of TDR is on the impacts of transdisciplinary research. Furthermore, this State-of-the-Art presents the various application areas, actors, and fields that have long been engaged with quality evaluations, and it outlines the most important findings from the researched literature regarding the qualities of TDR, as well as the criteria and methods for their evaluation. Based on these results, a position paper on the qualities of transdisciplinary research and their evaluation is to be developed, accompanied by practice-oriented recommendations for funding institutions and the leadership of research organisations. DOI of the English version: 10.5281/zenodo.16753170 DOI of the German version: 10.5281/zenodo.15535514 The translation of this document has been done combining DeepL Pro Version and ChatGPT (ChatGPT-4 Model) on human-level professional translation mode (academic context). The following members of the Working Group contributed with a review of the translation: Alexandra Lux & Gabriela Michelini. Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 3 State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Method ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Topicality and problem definition: Key points for framing the discourse in German-speaking countries ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Areas of application, actors and fields of assessment .............................................................................. 9 3. Qualities of TDR as well as criteria and procedures for their evaluation ............................................... 10 3.1. Analytical Dimension: What makes TDR distinctive? ...................................................................... 10 3.2. Normative dimension: According to which criteria is TDR assessed? ............................................. 11 3.3. Practical dimension: How is TDR assessed? .................................................................................... 13 Sources ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Imprint ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 4 State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries Introduction The Working Group on the Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research within the Society for Transdisciplinary and Participatory Research (Gesellschaft für Transdisziplinäre und Partizipative Forschung, GTPF) is dedicated to broadly examining assessment criteria for transdisciplinarity as a mode of research – spanning research projects, funding programs, and scientific institutions. The present paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding quality criteria for transdisciplinary research. To this end, the GTPF’s regional orientation led to a focus on the Germanspeaking discourse. As a guiding framework for the literature review, the GTPF Working Group “Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research” developed a preliminary working definition of transdisciplinarity: “Transdisciplinarity is a mode of research used to address complex and contested societal problems. This mode is characterized by cooperation and a joint learning process among various scientific disciplines, as well as between scientists and practitioners from the field under investigation. Through the integration of diverse perspectives and practices of knowledge production (i.e., various types of knowledge and epistemologies), new knowledge is to be generated. The knowledge newly created in this process can make a significant contribution to transformations aimed at overcoming complex societal and scientific challenges (in the sense of Gestaltung or ‘shaping society’) and can also expand discipline-specific theories, methods, and concepts. Integration processes represent a fundamental challenge at cognitive, social, organizational, and communicative levels.” (GTPF Working Group “Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research”, June 2024) This document serves as the basis for the work of the working group and the GTPF to develop a position on the qualities of transdisciplinary research (TDR) and its assessment and to formulate recommendations for funding agencies, research institution leaders, and researchers. The purpose of this document is to describe the established state of knowledge, to build upon it in formulating a shared position of the working group, and to evaluate whether this state is considered satisfactory. Method To create this report, a literature review was conducted drawing on three data sources. First, a systematic literature search was performed in SCOPUS, focusing on quality criteria for transdisciplinary research between 2011 and 2022. Second, relevant information was supplemented from the resources of the SHAPE-ID Toolkit (SHAPE-ID 2021) project and the database “INTERSECTIONS Literature Review: Bibliography on Intersections between Cultures, Practices and Policy in IDR/TDR” (Schaltegger et. al. 2024; Schaltegger et al. 2023; Schaltegger & Vienni-Baptista 2023).1 Only texts authored by individuals affiliated with institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland were 1 The data sets can be accessed at https://www.shapeidtoolkit.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Guide-AnnotatedBibliography-Academic.pdf and https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b -000632756 (links last checked on 05.02.2025). Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 5 considered. This selection aimed to identify the core elements of the German-speaking discourse on quality and assessment of transdisciplinary research, as this is also the community convening within the GTPF. Additionally, texts deemed relevant by members of the editorial group but not listed in the sources were included. The initial selection comprised 38 documents, which were discussed in the working group and eventually reduced to 19 documents (primarily due to redundancies). These documents were distributed among the 14 experts of the editorial team involved in compiling this report. They were analysed according to the following categories2: 1. Analytical Dimension: What makes transdisciplinary research distinctive? 2. Normative Dimension: According to which criteria is it assessed? (Normative expectations of transdisciplinary research) 3. Practical Dimension: How is it assessed? (Procedures) 4. Context of the Authors The results of the initial review were presented and re-examined in a group discussion within the working group. This discussion enabled the identification of core aspects of a fundamentally shared understanding evident in the literature. In a subsequent step, the results were systematized regarding the analytical, normative, and practical dimensions, then supplemented by experts from the working group (see Section 3). The aspects repeated in multiple reviewed texts (e.g., on integration) were only considered once. The collection includes texts from various institutions and countries, including research institutions in Germany (9), Austria (2), and Switzerland (7). Different types of institutions are represented, such as non-university research institutes, universities and their explicitly transdisciplinary institutes, academies of sciences, and networks. The authors come from diverse institutional roles: research staff or heads of projects and institutions as well as professors. Additionally, there are institutional sources, such as the Volkswagen Foundation. The research foci of the authors cannot be assigned to a single disciplinary context. They concentrate on topics such as designing inter-/transdisciplinary processes, philosophy of science, transdisciplinary methods and concepts, and collaboration between science and society. Moreover, some authors chose transdisciplinarity as the topic of their doctoral research. Other texts address quality criteria from a broad spectrum of fields, including ecology and sustainability, natural resources, sustainable development, agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, among others. This document presents the identified core aspects of the shared foundational understanding in Sections 1 and 2, and the three dimensions in Section 3. 1. Topicality and problem definition: Key points for framing the discourse in German-speaking countries This introductory section presents key elements that were identified in the selected literature beyond the evaluation categories defined by us. We understand these elements as constitutive components of the discourse on quality, providing a framework for approaching and understanding the analytical, 2 During the editing process, two additional texts were added that were not yet available at the time of the initial review: Marg and Theiler (2023) and Wiefek et al. (2024), as well as Bergmann et al. (2005), because this text was frequently cited by other texts. Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 6 normative, and practical dimensions. In the following, the five core elements are elaborated: 1.1. The demand for transdisciplinary research continues to grow: Expertise in and promotion of TDR is reflected in the expanding community and the growing number of projects and programs discussed in the literature reviewed. The starting point is the assumption that collaboration and cooperation between scientific and societal actors, as well as the integration of diverse perspectives and bodies of knowledge, lead to the generation of “socially robust” knowledge (Nowotny 1999; Hoffmann et al. 2019). Transdisciplinary research aims to develop actionable alternatives for solving real-world, complex problems (Lang et al. 2012; Moser and Wolf 2023) while simultaneously advancing scientific knowledge (Lux et al. 2019; Jahn et al. 2012; Marg and Theiler 2023). This coupled perspective is evident throughout the analysed literature, where transdisciplinary research typically addresses a scientific problem as well and aims to generate both academic and practice-oriented impacts. (Lux et al. 2019; Bergmann and Schramm 2008; Walter et al. 2007). These demands are crucial in determining the selection of actors (co-)responsible for quality assurance and the nature of their collaboration (Jahn and Keil 2015). At the same time, this results in a double normativity in TDR: on the one hand, normativity is evident in the problem definition (in framing a complex societal problem), for instance when it is described as a public welfare or sustainability issue. This normativity also concerns the objectives that the actors involved bring into the problem-solving process, which require negotiation and integration. Since transdisciplinary research processes ultimately also lead to the generation of orientation and transformation knowledge, it is necessary to analyse the extent to which normative objectives can or should be formulated, represented, and legitimized from a scientific perspective. On the other hand, the characteristics of the transdisciplinary research mode also result in a normative orientation in the way research is conducted, insofar as it is described as participatory, integrative regarding heterogeneous and plural knowledge, and impact oriented. 1.2. The existing logics and procedures of the science system are often difficult to reconcile with the requirements and specificities of TDR: The integration of different bodies of knowledge is not an end in itself but a process aimed at achieving the specific goals of TDR projects. Thus, the assessment of TDR also involves analysing the different sources of knowledge, their integration, and the reflexive processes employed to achieve the aims addressed (Radinger-Peer et al. 2022; Maag et al. 2018; Pohl et al. 2011; Edler and Kuhlmann 2008). However, the established academic system lacks both recognition for this type of expertise and support for developing corresponding competencies. Lawrence et al. (2022) warn of potential oversimplifications regarding the interactions between researchers and non-academic partners in TDR. A common misconception is the assumption that TDR merely consists of bringing together various actors, which automatically generates valuable insights or solutions through dialogue. While the involvement of nonacademic actors in TDR projects is frequent, active participation and empowerment are significantly less common. 1.3. Structures of the science system: divergent and competing understandings of science and scientific work collide, with significant implications for careers and funding opportunities for research projects, working groups, and individual researchers. The value of disciplinary research outputs is privileged in the established science system, whereas the Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 7 performance and quality criteria of transdisciplinary research processes are often ignored or viewed as merely additive. Yet, these require crossing boundaries at structural, socio-cultural, and disciplinary levels. According to the expectations of TDR, its quality is assessed not only based on problem-oriented knowledge production but also on its success in fostering dialogue and learning processes between science and society as well as within the academic community (Jahn and Keil 2015). 1.4. Criteria, procedures, and applications: The inadequacy of index-based assessments with performance indicators for evaluating TDR (Krainer and Winiwarter 2016; Bergmann and Schramm 2008) calls for a critical examination of existing standards. Existing standards need to be expanded and complemented by references to the specific requirements of transdisciplinary research (e.g., Moser and Wolf 2023). Furthermore, established excellence criteria —primarily quantitative indicators— should be critically scrutinized and, if necessary, revised. Initial approaches to this can be seen, for example, in the CoARA initiative3 or the DORA Declaration4. The focus is on establishing a shared, well-founded understanding of quality criteria for transdisciplinary research that funders, applicants, and researchers can equally support and apply. The aim is, on the one hand, to ensure accountability —for instance, concerning the time invested by those involved and the funding resources used— and, on the other hand, to enable impactful research (Lawrence et al. 2022). The reviewed texts present diverse purposes (of a project and of an assessment) and different points in time for assessing qualities. Some texts report on quality criteria developed within projects, such as Bergmann and Schramm (2008) and Jahn et al. (2012) in the context of the Evaluation Network for Transdisciplinary Research (Evalunet). Other texts discuss quality assessment in the context of research policy and governance, e.g., Edler and Kuhlmann (2008) or Volkswagen Foundation (2023). Additionally, there are contributions addressing the challenges of quality within institutional contexts, such as Maag et al. (2018) and Lawrence et al. (2022). Regarding the timing of assessment, the contributions offer indicators, guidelines, and reflections for formative evaluations and related learning processes (e.g., Bergmann and Schramm 2008), ex-ante evaluations (e.g., Pohl et al. 2011), or evaluations covering the entire research process —from planning through implementation and execution to evaluating results (e.g., Jahn and Keil 2015). Radinger-Peer et al. (2022) examine expectations regarding collaboration between science and practice, particularly within the dichotomy between the two, in the context of the project “Römerland Carnuntum 2040.” 1.5. Effects: Another focus in the German-speaking discourse on qualities of transdisciplinary research lies on its impacts. These contributions often use similar terminology but emphasize different aspects in their approaches. • Early contributions, such as Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2006), propose an impact model as a basis for assessment. This distinguishes between research results, their use, and their effects. Walter et al. (2007) developed a similar assessment framework based on an ex-post evaluation process, categorizing societal impacts into three levels: outputs (procedural and product-related participation of actors), outcomes (intermediate effects between outputs and results), and results (enhanced decision-making capacity). • Other contributions, such as Krainer and Winiwarter (2016), propose interaction-based 3 See https://coara.eu/ 4 See: https://sfdora.org/ Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 8 approaches for assessing the quality of transdisciplinary transformative research, particularly considering social impact in various societal arenas. Kaufmann-Hayoz et al. (2016) focus on the immediate impacts of research results, including: (a) extra-scientific knowledge representations, (b) guidelines or tools, and (c) changes in the field (within the context of the BMBF funding measure “From Knowledge to Action – New Paths to Sustainable Consumption” 2008–2013). For each type of result, the authors differentiate between output (research findings), impact (direct effect on the target group), and outcome (broader societal effects). • Moser and Wolf (2023) also present a set of criteria for measuring impact. As part of the SynSICRIS monitoring tool, they record the potential societal benefits of application-oriented research and make visible the societal contributions of research and development. Other contributions focus on processes and factors influencing the potential for creating societal impacts through TDR. • Lux et al. (2019) investigate whether and how practices or methods in transdisciplinary projects can promote societal (and scientific) impacts. This analysis is based on empirical evaluations of several case studies within the project “TransImpact – Effective Transdisciplinary Research.” The results indicate that societal impacts can arise both from activities conducted in appropriate transdisciplinary processes and from the relevant results, as well as from the contextual conditions into which TDR is embedded. These conditions include aspects such as the history of the problem, actor heterogeneity, the environment surrounding the project, and funding conditions. • Pärli et al. (2023) conduct a systematic literature review and expert interviews on institutional factors influencing the impacts of transdisciplinary projects. They highlight the importance of the processes in this context. The central significance of TDR processes for enabling impacts both on science and on practice is also emphasized by Hoffmann et al. (2019). Based on these overarching aspects, an initial framework is established within which the question of TDR quality can be approached. This framework applies to ex-ante, ex-post, as well as accompanying, formative evaluations in various institutional settings (projects, programs, but also universities and other research institutions). Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 9 2. Areas of application, actors and fields of assessment Even though there are still no binding quality standards that comprehensively span different groups of actors and institutions, quality assessments have long been taking place in practice in various areas of application: • in the preparation, team-building, and implementation of individual research projects by researchers; • on the part of potential practice partners or stakeholders, for instance in deciding whether and to what extent participation in research projects should be sought (effectiveness for implementation); • in research funding and administration (project funding agencies) in program development and approval procedures; • on the part of university leadership (and leadership of non-university institutions) in profile and strategy development, in internal competitive allocation of funds, and in preparation for external evaluations; • regarding the increase of acceptance and connectivity to (inter-)disciplinary basic research. Issues of quality also play a role in science and socio-political debates. In particular, TDR can make an important policy-advising contribution in the debates about climate and transformation. In this context, quality is increasingly measured by which societal groups are involved, how the results are politically contextualized, and how well they connect to broader discourses. The establishment of quality criteria is therefore relevant for all research fields that predominantly operate in a transdisciplinary mode. This mode is strongly anchored in sustainability and health research, but is increasingly also found, for example, in educational research. The question of quality criteria —and thus also of the procedures in which they are or should be applied— is relevant for multiple actor groups, especially researchers, funders, and practice partners, but also for political and civil society actors. In the application of quality criteria for assessment procedures, four fields of assessment can be distinguished: • quality generation, e.g. in planning and implementing research projects (including dissemination of their results) (see e.g. Radinger-Peer et al. 2022; Jahn and Keil 2015; Jahn et al. 2012; Bergmann and Schramm 2008; Walter et al. 2007; Pohl and Hirsch 2006); • quality assurance in projects, but also for calls for proposals and review procedures (see e.g. Kaufmann-Hayoz et al. 2016; Pohl et al. 2011); • quality assessment in different evaluation procedures (formative or summative) (see e.g. Wiefek et al. 2024; Bergmann and Schramm 2008); • impact assessment of research results/products in society and science (see e.g. Marg and Theiler 2023; Pärli et al. 2023; Moser and Wolf 2023; Lux et al. 2019; Hoffmann et al. 2019; Krainer and Winiwarter 2016). In all these cases, quality criteria and assessment processes can serve several functions: an orientation function, a decision-making function, and a dialogical function. In every instance, the quality criteria exist in a tension between the formulation of criteria that are as generally applicable as possible on the one hand and their contextand situation-specific concretization and detail for specific assessments in the various fields of application on the other. Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 16 Sources5 Bergmann, Matthias, Bettina Brohmann, Esther Hofmann, M. Céline Loibl, Regine Rehaag, Engelbert Schramm, Jan Peter Voß. 2005. Qualitätskriterien transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Leitfaden für die formative Evaluation von Forschungsprojekten. ISOE-Studientexte Nr. 13. Frankfurt am Main. Bergmann, Matthias und Engelbert Schramm. 2008. „Grenzüberschreitung und Integration: Die formative Evaluation transdisziplinärer Forschung und ihre Kriterien.“ In Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten, herausgegeben von M. Bergmann, 149–175. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. Di Giulio, Antonietta, und Rico Defila. 2018. „Partizipative Wissenserzeugung und Wissenschaftlichkeit.“ In Transdisziplinär und transformativ forschen, herausgegeben von R. Defila und A. Di Giulio, 39–67. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21530-9_2. Edler, Jakob, und Stephan Kuhlmann. 2008. „Formative Evaluation in reflexiver Forschungspolitik.“ In Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten, herausgegeben von M. Bergmann und E. Schramm, 203–231. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. Hoffmann, Sabine, Julie Thompson Klein, und Christian Pohl. 2019. „Linking transdisciplinary research projects with science and practice at large: Introducing insights from knowledge utilization.“ Environmental Science und Policy 102: 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.011. Jahn, Thomas, und Florian Keil. 2015. „An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research.“ Futures 65: 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.015. Jahn, Thomas, Matthias Bergmann, und Florian Keil. 2012. „Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization.“ Ecological Economics 79: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017. Kaufmann-Hayoz, Ruth, Rico Defila, Antonietta Di Giulio, und Markus Winkelmann. 2016. „Was man sich erhoffen darf – Zur gesellschaftlichen Wirkung transdisziplinärer Forschung.“ In Transdisziplinär forschen – zwischen Ideal und gelebter Praxis. Hotspots, Geschichten, Wirkungen, herausgegeben von R. Defila und A. Di Giulio, 289–327. Frankfurt am Main: oekom. Krainer, Larissa, und Verena Winiwarter. 2016. „Die Universität als Akteurin der transformativen Wissenschaft: Konsequenzen für die Messung der Qualität transdisziplinärer Forschung.“ GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 25 (2): 110–116. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.2.11. Krott, Max. 2002. „Evaluation of transdisciplinary research.“ In Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Vol. 3, Chapter 19. https://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c04/E6-49-02-07.pdf. Lang, Daniel, Arnim Wiek, Matthias Bergmann, Michael Stauffacher, Pim Martens, Peter Moll, Mark Swilling, und Christopher J. Thomas. 2012. „Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges.“ Sustainability Science 7 (S1): 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-0110149-x. Lux, Alexandra, Martina Schäfer, Matthias Bergmann, Thomas Jahn, Oskar Marg, Emilia Nagy, AnnaChristin Ransiek, und Lena Theiler. 2019. „Societal effects of transdisciplinary sustainability research— How can they be strengthened during the research process?“ Environmental Science und Policy 101: 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.012. 5 In bold, the texts that correspond to the original sample Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 17 Lawrence, Mark, Stephen Williams, Patrizia Nanz, und Ortwin Renn. 2022. „Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research.“ One Earth 5 (1): 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010. Maag, Simon, Timothy J. Alexander, Robert Kase, und Sabine Hoffmann. 2018. „Indicators for measuring the contributions of individual knowledge brokers.“ Environmental Science und Policy 89: 1– 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.002. Marg, Oskar, und Lena Theiler. 2023. „Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity.“ Research Evaluation 32 (4): 635–647. Moser, Andrea, und Birge Wolf. 2023. „Wirkungspotenziale von Forschung und Entwicklung bewerten: Ein theoriebasiertes und multidimensionales Kriterien-Set.“ In Indikatoren in Entscheidungsprozessen, herausgegeben von Julia Mörtel, Alfred Nordmann und Oliver Schlaudt, 57–68. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40638-7_10. Nowotny, Helga. 1999. „The Need for Socially Robust Knowledge.“ In: TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten 8 (3/4), 8. Jg., 12–16 Pärli, Rea. 2023. „How input, process, and institutional factors influence the effects of transdisciplinary research projects.“ Environmental Science und Policy 140: 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.11.019. Pohl, Christian, Pasqualina Perrig-Chiello, Beat Butz, Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Dominique Joye, Roderick Lawrence, Michael Nentwich, Theres Paulsen, Manuela Rossini, Bernhard Truffer, Doris WastlWalter, Urs Wiesmann, und Jakob Zinsstag. 2011. Questions to Evaluate Interand Transdisciplinary Research Proposals. Working Paper, td-net for Transdisciplinary Research, Bern. https://api.swiss-academies.ch/site/assets/files/14856/tdnet_pohl_et_al_2011_questions_to_evaluate_inter-_and_transdisciplinary_research_proposals.pdf Pohl, Christian, und Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn. 2006. Gestaltungsprinzipien für die transdisziplinäre Forschung. Ein Beitrag des td-net. München: oekom. Radinger-Peer, Verena, Elisabeth Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Marianne Penker, und Katharina Gugerell. 2022. „Different perspectives on a common goal? The Q-method as a formative assessment to elucidate varying expectations towards transdisciplinary research collaborations.“ Sustainability Science: 2459–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01192-1. Schaltegger A.S., Linley R., Brombach L., Itty N., Hille-Dahl L. & Vienni-Baptista B. 2024. INTERSECTIONS: A Systematic Review of Grey Literature on Practices, Evaluation and Policies in Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research. ETH Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000691844 Schaltegger, A.S., Brombach, L., & Vienni-Baptista, B. 2023. INTERSECTIONS Literature Review Dataset: Bibliography on Intersections between Cultures, Practices and Policy in IDR/TDR. ETH Zurich https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000632756 Schaltegger, A.S. & Vienni-Baptista B. 2023. INTERSECTIONS: Literature Review Query Strings for Web of Science, Scopus and JSTOR. ETH Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000632748 SHAPE-ID. 2021. Annotated bibliography collection on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Compiled by Vienni-Baptista B. & Fletcher, I. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4743697 VolkswagenStiftung. 2023. Transdisziplinarität. Transfer – Wissenschaftskommunikation. Strategische Leitlinien der VolkswagenStiftung. Hannover. Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 18 https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/sites/default/files/documents/Transdiziplinaritaet_VolkswagenStift ung.pdf. Walter, Alexander I., Sebastian Helgenberger, Arnim Wiek, und Roland W. Scholz. 2007. „Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evaluation method.“ Evaluation and Program Planning 30: 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002 Wiefek, Jasmin, Emilia Nagy, und Martina Schäfer. 2024. „Formative evaluation of transdisciplinary research for systematic impact orientation in real-world laboratories.“ GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 33 (S1): 94–101. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.33.S1.14. Working Group Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research May 2025 Working Paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research in German-Speaking Countries 19 Imprint Working paper 1-2025: State-of-the-Art: Assessing the qualities of transdisciplinary research in Germanspeaking countries. Authors: Gabriela Michelini, Matthias Bergmann, Thomas Jahn, Alexandra Lux for the editorial group of the State-of-the-Art of the GTPFWorking Group on the Assessment of the Qualities of Transdisciplinary Research The editorial team of the State of the Art: Tamara Avellan, Matthias Bergmann, Bettina Brohmann, Peter Dietrich, Bert Droste-Franke, Dominik Düber, Thomas Jahn, Silke Kleihauer, Alexandra Lux, Gabriela Michelini, Jessica Nuske, Sara Saba, Roman Seidl, Katja Treichel-Grass. Commentator from the working group: Maria Busse. Published: May 2025 Published by Gesellschaft für transdisziplinäre und partizipative Forschung e.V. c/o TU Berlin, Stabsstelle Science und Society -ScSoStraße des 17. Juni 135 10623 Berlin Executive Board (Vorstand): Prof. Dr Christine Ahrend, Dr Miriam Brandt, Thomas Korbun Register of Associations (Vereinsregister): VR 40284 B, Berlin-Charlottenburg Local Court Web: www.gtpf.science E-Mail: [email protected] Phone: +49 030-314 775 02 Become a member: https://gtpf.science/mitgliedschaft Subscribe to the newsletter: https://gtpf.science/newsletter Follow on LinkedIn: https://de.linkedin.com/company/gtpf The Gesellschaft für Transdisziplinäre und Partizipative Forschung e.V. (GTPF) is the professional association for transdisciplinary and participatory researchers, teachers and practice partners in German-speaking countries. The GTPF offers a central platform for networking, professional exchange and representation of interests in the field of transdisciplinary and participatory research as well as for cooperation between science and society.