Andrews LM, Munaretto S, Mees HLP, Driessen PPJ(2024) Conceptualising boundary work activities to enhance credible, salient and legitimate knowledge in sustainability transdisciplinary research projects Environ Sci Policy 155:103722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103722
Google Scholar
Arpin I, Likhacheva K, Bretagnolle V (2023) Organising inter- and transdisciplinary research in practice. The case of the meta-organisation French LTSER platforms. Environ Sci Policy 144:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.03.009
Google Scholar
Bammer G (2008a) The case for a new discipline of Integration and Implementation Sciences (I2S). Integration Insights #6, May. www.anu.edu.au/iisn
Bammer G (2008b) Enhancing research collaborations. Integration Insights #10, June. www.anu.edu.au/iisn
Bammer G (2013) Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems. Canberra Australia: ASU E Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/DI.01.2013
Bammer G (2024) Why tools are as important as results and what to do about it. World Water Policy 10(2):398–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/wwp2.12179
Google Scholar
Bammer G, O’Rourke M, O’Connell D, Neuhauser L, Midgley G, Klein JT, Grigg NJ, Gadlin H, Elsum IR, Bursztyn M, Fulton EA, Pohl C, Smithson M, Vilsmaier U, Bergmann M, Jaeger J, Merkx F, Baptista BV (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 Commun 6:5. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0
Google Scholar
Becker E (2006) Soziale Ökologie: Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Campus, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland
Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2010) Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung: Ein Überblick mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Campus, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland
Bevilacqua R, Di Rosa M, Riccardi GR, Pelliccioni G, Lattanzio F, Felici E, Margaritini A, Amabili G, Maranesi E (2022) Design and development of a scale for evaluating the acceptance of social robotics for older people: the robot era inventory. Front Neurorobotics 16:883106–883106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2022.883106
Google Scholar
Boateng GO, Neilands T, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL (2018) Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 6:149–149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Google Scholar
Boix Mansilla V (2010) Learning to synthesize: the development of interdisciplinary understanding. In: Frodeman R, Thompson Klein J, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 287–306
Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K (2016) Shared cognitive–emotional–interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci Technol Hum Values 41:517–612
Google Scholar
Bonnes C, Hochholdinger S (2021) Die Erfassung von Lehransätzen von Lehrenden in der Weiterbildung – Entwicklung der Lehransatz-Skala,. Z Erziehungswissenschaft 24(1):113–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-00991-z
Google Scholar
Bromme R (2000) Beyond one’s own perspective: the psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In: Stehr N, Weingart P (eds) Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp 115–133. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442678729-008
Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press
Burger P, Kamber R (2003) Cognitive integration in transdisciplinary science: knowledge as a key notion. Issues Integr Stud 21:43–73
Cockburn J (2022) Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary sustainability science: tools from applied critical realism. Sustain Dev 30(2):358–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2279
Google Scholar
Crawford P, Bryce P (2003) Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int J Proj Manag 21(5):363–367. pp
Google Scholar
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Google Scholar
Defila R, Di Giulio A, Scheuermann M (2006) Forschungsverbundmanagement: Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte. vdf Hochschulverl., Zürich, Schweiz
Defila R, Di Giulio A (2015) Integrating knowledge: challenges raised by the “Inventory of Synthesis. Futures 65:123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.013
Google Scholar
Defila R, Di Giulio A (2018) Reallabore als Quelle für die Methodik transdisziplinären und transformativen Forschens – eine Einführung. In: Defila R, Di Giulio A (Hrsg.) Transdisziplinär und transformativ forschen. Eine Methodensammlung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 9−35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21530-9_1
Defila R, Di Giulio A (Eds.) (2019) Transdisziplinär und transformativ forschen. Band 2: Eine Methodensammlung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27135-0
Di Giulio A, Defila R (2024) Transformative research. In: Elgar Encyclopedia of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity. pp 575–579. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035317967.ch126
de Rezende Alvares LMA, de Sá Freire P (2022) Transdisciplinarity: the search for the unity of scientific and technological knowledge. Rev Digit Bibliotecon Ciênc Inf 20(2022):AR-19. https://doi.org/10.20396/rdbci.v20i00.8670175
Durán SE, Ballesta M, Parra MA (2022) Contributions of epistemic conceptions for the production of scientific knowledge. Rev Filos 39(101):10–23. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6658344
Google Scholar
Eckstein PP (2016) Statistik für Wirtschaftswissenschaftler: Eine realdatenbasierte Einführung mit SPSS. 5., Aktualisierte und Erweiterte Auflage. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10221-0
Edmondson AC, Nembhard IM (2009) Product development and learning in project teams: the challenges are the benefits. J Prod Innov Manag 26(2):123–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00341.x
Google Scholar
Enengel B, Muhar A, Penker M, Freyer B, Drlik S, Ritter F (2012) Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development-an analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landsc Urban Plan 105:106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.004
Google Scholar
Engström H, Backlund P (2021). Serious games design knowledge – experiences from a decade of serious games development. EAI Endorsed Trans Game Based Learn. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-5-2021.170008
Fischer C, Radinger-Peer V, Krainer L, Penker M (2024) Communication tools and their support for integration in transdisciplinary research projects. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11:120. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02607-3
Google Scholar
Fleming A, Agrawal S, Dinomika, Fransisca Y, Graham L, Lestari S, Mendham D, O’Connell D, Paul B, Po M, Rawluk A, Sakuntaladewi N, Winarno B, Yuwati TW (2021) Reflections on integrated research from community engagement in peatland restoration. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8:199. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00878-8
Google Scholar
Frangenheim A, Schneider ML, Waiblinger S, Fischer C, Radinger-Peer V, Hörtenhuber S, Penker M (2025) Mission-Oriented Agrifood Innovation Systems in the Making: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Identify Context-Specific Drivers of Change. Sustain Sci, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01719-2
Fry P, Bachmann F, Bose L, Flury M, Förster R, Kläy A, Küffer C, Zingerli C (2008) Von implizitem Know-how zu expliziten Thesen Inter- und transdisziplinärer Wissensaustausch. GAIA 17:318–320. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.17.3.17
Google Scholar
Godemann J (2008) Knowledge integration: a key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation. Environ Educ Res 14:625–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802469188
Google Scholar
Grice J (2001) Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychol Methods 6(4):430–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.430
Google Scholar
Gugerell K(2023) Serious games for sustainability transformations: participatory research methods for sustainability ‐ toolkit #7 GAIA 32(3):292–295. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.3.5
Google Scholar
Gugerell K, Fiala V, Penker M, Radinger-Peer V, Thaler T, Janisch J (2024) 1 ALPMEMA: – Alpine Mountain Hay Meadow Management D 25 Collection of tested playful approaches suited for scenario processes. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13960089
Gugerell K, Radinger-Peer V, Penker M (2023) Systemic knowledge integration in transdisciplinary and sustainability transformation research. Futures 150:103177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103177
Google Scholar
Harris F, Lyon F, Sioen GB, Ebi KL (2024) Working with the tensions of transdisciplinary research: a review and agenda for the future of knowledge co-production in the Anthropocene. Glob Sustain 7:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2024.11
Google Scholar
Henry KB, Arrow H, Carini B (1999) A tripartite model of group identification. Small Group Res 30(5):558–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000504
Google Scholar
Hinrichs MM, Seager TP, Tracy SJ, Hannah MA (2017) Innovation in the knowledge age: implications for collaborative science. Environ Syst Decis 37(2):144–155. pp
Google Scholar
Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Hoffmann S(2016) Transdisciplinary knowledge integration within large research programs GAIA 25(3):201–203. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.3.14
Google Scholar
Hoffmann S, Pohl C, Hering G (2017) Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Res Policy 46(3):678–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004
Google Scholar
Hoffmann-Riem H (2008) Idea of the handbook. In: Handbook of transdisciplinary research. pp 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_1
ITD Alliance Working Group on Toolkits and Methods (2024) Toolkits. In: Darbellay F (ed) Elgar encyclopedia of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 533–537. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035317967.ch117
Jahn T, Keil F, Becker E, Schramm E (2006) Transdisziplinäre Integration. In: Becker E, Jahn T (eds) Soziale Ökologie – Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Campus, Frankfurt/New York, pp 287–339
Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
Google Scholar
Jahn T, Keil F (2015) An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures 65:195–208. pp
Google Scholar
Janssen J, Laatz W (2007) Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS für Windows: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in das Basissystem und das Modul Exakte Tests, Edition 6. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1007/978-3-662-53477-9
Google Scholar
Janse van Rensburg JT, Goede R (2019) A model for improving knowledge generation in design science research through reflective practice. Electron J Bus Res Methods. https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.17.4.001
Kalmár É, Stenfert H (2020) Science communication as a design challenge intransdisciplinary collaborations. J Sci Commun 19(4):C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19040301
Google Scholar
Kaiser HF (1958) The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23(3):187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233
Google Scholar
Kaiser HF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
Google Scholar
Karrasch L, Grothmann T, Michel TA, Wesselow M, Wolter H, Unger A, Wegner A, Giebels D, Siebenhüner B (2022) Integrating knowledge within and between knowledge types in transdisciplinary sustainability research: seven case studies and an indicator framework. Environ Sci Policy ume 131:14–25. pp
Google Scholar
Kenward MG, Carpenter J(2007) Multiple imputation: current perspectives Stat Methods Med Res 16:199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280206075304
Google Scholar
Kerber H, Schramm E, Winkler M (2014) Partizipative Szenarioverfahren – zur methodischen Ableitung von Zukunftsbildern. Das Projekt SAUBER+ als Beispiel. ISOE-Materialien Soziale Ökologie, 38, Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), Frankfurt am Main. Accessed 24 Jul 2024
Klein JT (2012) Research integration: a comparative knowledge base. In: Repko AF, Newell W, Szostak R (eds) Case studies in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 283–298. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483349541.n10
Kline P (1993) A handbook of psychological testing, 2nd edn. Routledge, London
Lam DPM, Freund ME, Kny J, Marg O, Mbah M, Theiler L, Bergmann M, Brohmann B, Lang DJ, Schäfer M (2021) Transdisciplinary research: towards an integrative perspective. GAIA 30(4):243–249. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.30.4.7
Google Scholar
Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
Google Scholar
Laursen B, O’Rourke M (2019) Thinking with Klein about Integration. Issues Interdiscip Stud 37:33–61. pp
Laursen B, Vienni-Baptista B, Bammer G, Di Giulio A, Paulsen T, Robson-Williams M, Studer S (2024) tting: An unrecognized form of expertise for overcoming fragmentation in inter- and transdisciplinarity. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03279-9
Google Scholar
Le Huu Nghia T, Thi My Duyen N (2019) Developing and validating a scale for evaluating internship-related learning outcomes. High Educ 77(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0251-4
Google Scholar
Lessiter J, Freeman J, Keogh E, Davidoff J (2001). A cross-media presence questionnaire: the ITC-sense of presence inventory. Presence. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343612
Lux A, Marg O, Schneider F (2024) Integration. In: Elgar encyclopedia of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. pp 277–280. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035317967.ch61
Madni AM (2007) Transdisciplinarity: reaching beyond disciplines to find connections. J Integr Des Process Sci 11(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3233/JID-2007-11101
Google Scholar
McDonald D, Bammer G, Dean P (2009) Research integration using dialogue methods. ANU Press, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, p 165
Medema W, Furber A, Adamowski J, Zhou Q, Mayer I (2016) Exploring the potential impact of serious games on social learning and stakeholder collaborations for transboundary watershed management of the St. Lawrence river basin. Water 8(5):175–175. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8050175
Google Scholar
Milkoreit M (2016) The promise of climate fiction – imagination, storytelling and the politics of the future. In: Wapner PK, Elver H (eds), Reimagining climate change, Routledge advances in climate change research. Routledge, London, pp 171–191
Minna K, Jacobi J, Korhonen-Kurki K, Lukkarinen JP, Ott A, Peltomaa J, Schneider F, Tribaldos T, Zaehringer JG (2023) Reflexive use of methods: a framework for navigating different types of knowledge and power in transformative research. Sustain Sci 19(2):507–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01431-z
Google Scholar
Misra S, Rippy MA, Grant SB (2024) Analyzing knowledge integration in convergence research. Environ Sci Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103902
Mitchell C, Ross K (2016) Transisciplinarity in action: four guidelines, a reflexive framework and their application to improving community sanitation governance in Indonesia. In: Fam D, Palmer J, Riedy C, Mitchell C (eds). Transdisciplinary Research and Practice for Sustainability Outcomes (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652184
Mobjörk M (2010) Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: a refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 42(Issue 8):866–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.03.003
Google Scholar
Morgado FFR, Meireles JFF, Neves CM, Amaral ACS, Ferreira MEC (2018) Scale development: ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices. Psicol Refl Crít 30:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0057-1
Google Scholar
Network for Transdisciplinary Research (2024) Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, Bern, Switzerland. Accessed 19 Sept 2024
OECD (2020) Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research. OECD Science. technology and industry policy papers. No. 88. OECD Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/0ca0ca45-en
Özerol G, Schillinger J, Abu-Madi M (2018) Transdisciplinary Research and Development Cooperation: insights from the first phase of the Palestinian-Dutch academic cooperation programme on water. Water 10(no. 10):1449. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101449
Google Scholar
O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Gonnerman C (2016) On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: a philosophical framework Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 56:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.003
Google Scholar
Pärli R (2023) How input, process, and institutional factors influence the effects of transdisciplinary research projects. Environ Sci Policy 140:80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.11.019
Google Scholar
Penker M, Wytrzens HK (2005) Scenarios for the Austrian food chain in 2020 and its landscape impacts. Landsc Urban Plan 71(2):175–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.03.002
Google Scholar
Peukert D, Vilsmaier U (2021) Collaborative design prototyping in transdisciplinary research: an approach to heterogeneity and unknowns. Futures 132:102808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102808
Google Scholar
Pinillos RG, Appleby MC, Manteca X, Scott-Park F, Smith C, Velarde A(2016) One welfare – a platform for improving human and animal welfare Vet Rec 179(16):412–413. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.i5470
Google Scholar
Pohl C (2024) Types of knowledge. In: Elgar encyclopedia of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. pp 03–606. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035317967.ch132
Pohl C, Truffer B, Hirsch Hadorn G (2017) Addressing wicked problems through transdisciplinary research. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Pacheco RCS (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 319–331
Pohl C, Klein JT, Hoffmann S, Mitchell C, Fam D (2021) Conceptualising transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environ Sci Policy 118:18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.005
Google Scholar
Ranganathan P, Caduff C (2023) Designing and validating a research questionnaire – part 1. Perspect Clin Res Jul -Sep 14(3):152–155. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_140_23
Google Scholar
Restrepo MJ, Lelea MA, Kaufmann BA (2018) Evaluating knowledge integration and co-production in a 2-year collaborative learning process with smallholder dairy farmer groups. Sustain Sci 13:1265–1286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0553-6
Google Scholar
Revelle W (2024) Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R package version 2.4.6. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Accessed 2 Sept 2024
Richter I, Gabe-Thomas E, Queirós AM, Sheppard SRJ, Pahl S (2023) Advancing the potential impact of future scenarios by integrating psychological principles. Environ Sci Policy 140:68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.11.015
Google Scholar
Schinka JA, Velicer WF, Weiner IR (2012) Handbook of psychology, Vol. 2, Research methods in psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ
SCNAT (Swiss Academy of Sciences) (2023) About the td-net toolbox. In: ‘SCNAT knowledge’ web portal. SCNAT, Bern, Switzerland. Accessed 26 Aug 2024
Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015) The real type and the ideal type of transdisciplinary processes. Part II-what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustain Sci 10(4):653–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0327-3
Google Scholar
Scholz RW, Zscheischler J, Köckler H, Czichos R, Hofmann K-M, Sindermann C(2024a) Transdisciplinary knowledge integration – PART I: theoretical foundations and an organizational structure Technol Forecast Soc Chang 202:123281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123281
Google Scholar
Scholz RW, Zscheischler J, Köckler H, Czichos R, Hofmann K-M, Sindermann C (2024b) Transdisciplinary knowledge integration PART II: experiences of five transdisciplinary processes on digital data use in Germany. Technol. Forecast Soc Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122981
Sebastián C, Vergara M, Lissi MR, Pino CH, Silva M, Pérez-Cotapos MA (2025) Playful stances for developing pre-service teachers’ epistemic cognition: addressing cognitive, emotional, and identity complexities of epistemic change through play. Learn Instr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102008
Stacey P, Nandhakumar J (2009) A temporal perspective of the computer game development process. Information Systems Journal. 2009; 19: 479-497. In: Engström H, Backlund P (2021) Serious games design knowledge – experiences from a decade of serious games development. EAI Endorsed Trans Game Based Learn. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-5-2021.170008
Stevens JP (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 4th edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Strasser U, Vilsmaier U, Prettenhaler F, Marke T, Steiger R, Damm A, Hanzer F, Wilcke RAI, Stötter J (2014) Coupled component modelling for inter- and transdisciplinary climate change impact research: dimensions of integration and examples of interface design. Environ Model Softw Environ. 60:180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.06.014
Google Scholar
Studer S, Pohl C (2023) Toolkits for transdisciplinary research: state of the art, challenges, and potentials for further developments. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802207835.00044
Tavakol M, Dennick R(2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha Int J Med Educ 2:53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Google Scholar
Thagard P, Kroon F (2008) Emotional consensus in group decision making. In: Thagard P (ed.) Hot thought: mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 65–86 (in Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K (2016) Shared cognitive–emotional–interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations)
Theiler L, Marg O, Ransiek A, Nagy E (2019) Anforderungen an wirkungsvolle Methoden für transdisziplinäre Wissensintegration. In: Methoden umweltsoziologischer Forschung Tagungsband der 15. Tagung der Nachwuchsgruppe Umweltsoziologie. /Institution Ort (56). ISOE – Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung, Frankfurt am Main, pp 62–76
Tress G, Tress B, Fry G (2007) Analysis of the barriers to integration in landscape research projects. Land Use Policy 24:374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.05.001
Google Scholar
Truffer B (2007) Wissensintegration in Transdisziplinären Projekten Flexibles Rollenverständnis als Schlüsselkompetenz für das Schnittstellenmanagement. GAIA 16(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.16.1.12
Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K (2011) Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw 45(3):1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Google Scholar
Vervoort J, Mangnus A, McGreevy S, Ota K, Thompson K, Rupprecht C, Tamura N, Moossdorff C, Spiegelberg M, Kobayashi M (2022) Unlocking the potential of gaming for anticipatory governance. Earth Syst Gov 11:100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2021.100130
Google Scholar
Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation—experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA 16:52–57. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.16.1.14
Google Scholar
Zougris K (2018) Communities of scholars: A conceptual scheme of knowledge production. Societies 8(4):118. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8040118
Google Scholar
link