Placing Transdisciplinarity in Context: A Review of Approaches to Connect Scholars, Society and Action

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for this opportunity to review an extensive review paper on TDA and the eight approaches.

The presented manuscript provides summaries of eight approaches that have been applied in natural resource management/conservation. The manuscript also presents the authors’ analysis on the eight approaches by applying two sets of dimensions. Based on these review and analysis, the authors raises key considerations and discussion points on TDA.

While the presented manuscript is quite informative and some discussion points are insightful, I found the following major weaknesses that need to be improved before further review steps.

1.Title

The presented title does not match with the content of the manuscript. The title states “the long view of sustainability science”, however, majority of the manuscript content is about analysis of selected eight approaches that are used in natural resource/conservation field. This reflecs the authors’ expertise. It was also not clear what is “the long view” the authors try to deliver by this study. I suggest the authors to reconsider the title. The current version of paper seems to be completed even if “sustainability science” is replaced with other terms such as “approaches in natural resource management”.

2. Originality

While the manuscript presents summaries of selected eight approaches that are widely used in natural resource/conservation field and authors’ analysis of them, the originality of this paper is not clearly presented. The authors states in Line 107-108 that “In this paper, we aim to inform and strengthen TDA practice by reviewing eight parallel collaborative approaches that seek to bridge knowledge and action”, however the current version of manuscript does not explain why reviewing the selected eight approaches will be able to inform and strengthen TDA practice. Because this point is not clearly explained, it was difficult to understand which points are original to this work.

3. Structure

This manuscript is submitted as a review paper, however the applied methodology to review selected approaches and literature is not provided. Methodology section is simply omitted and this makes it difficult to follow the research process the authors went through by reading this paper. I suggest the authors to add methodology section to explain why the eight approaches were selected to review and how literature review was conduced for each approach. 

The role of “Literature review” section is also not clear in the entire manuscript at this moment. This section provides summaries of eight approaches, yet it was not clear why these summaries are provided here. 

The process of creating Figure 1~4 is vitally important to review if it was scientifically rigorous process or not. While this information is provided in Appendix in the current version, I strongly recommend the authors to provide detailed explanations of these processes in the main text. 

It was also difficult to tell which sections are results and which sections are discussions of this paper. I assume what is provided in 3.1 are results and what is provided in 3.2 and 3.3 are discussions. This may be particular preferences of writing style, however, I would like to suggest the authors to follow IMRAD style to present the current contents they have in a clearer structure.

4. “Pracademics”

    “Pracademics” is stressed as one key finding in Abstract, however this idea is mentioned only once in Line 648 without any elaborations. I suggest the authors to revise the current version of abstract according to the current contents of manuscript.

5. Sustainability science

While the title and introduction section mention sustainability science, the main contents of the manuscript is about approaches widely applied in natural resource/conservation field. I found placing the authors’ discussion points, points raised in section 3.2 and 3.3, in sustainability science is misleading as the scope of sustainability science goes beyond natural resource/conservation field. I recommend the authors to reorganise and situation the current discussion points within natural resource/conservation field.  

Overall, I would like to suggest the authors to have a major revision to improve its clarity (in terms of its structure) and to express the originality of this paper. I look forward to reviewing the revised manuscript. 

Best,

Author Response

1.Title. The presented title does not match with the content of the manuscript. The title states “the long view of sustainability science”, however, majority of the manuscript content is about analysis of selected eight approaches that are used in natural resource/conservation field. This reflects the authors’ expertise. It was also not clear what is “the long view” the authors try to deliver by this study. I suggest the authors to reconsider the title. The current version of paper seems to be completed even if “sustainability science” is replaced with other terms such as “approaches in natural resource management”. As our goal is to better understand transdisciplinarity in context we have retitled to reflect this. Although we use the lens of natural resources/conservation to look at these approaches, our literature reviews for each approach are broader than this single application area. We believe that the implications of this review are also broader and informative to scholars who practice transdisciplinarity (see 124-127 and our response to comment #5).

2. Originality. While the manuscript presents summaries of selected eight approaches that are widely used in natural resource/conservation field and authors’ analysis of them, the originality of this paper is not clearly presented. The authors states in Line 107-108 that “In this paper, we aim to inform and strengthen TDA practice by reviewing eight parallel collaborative approaches that seek to bridge knowledge and action”, however the current version of manuscript does not explain why reviewing the selected eight approaches will be able to inform and strengthen TDA practice. Because this point is not clearly explained, it was difficult to understand which points are original to this work. This review offers a historical perspective to transdisciplinarity and suggests ways that TDA might benefit from lessons learned in parallel approaches over time. I have added a few sentences to address the “why” (117-122). Each discussion section also has implications for TDA practice (ex. 640-643, 659-661, 668-669, 697-698, 742-744), as well as being summarized at the end of the discussion (section 5.2.4.).

3. The role of “Literature review” section is also not clear in the entire manuscript at this moment. This section provides summaries of eight approaches, yet it was not clear why these summaries are provided here. As we state at the end of the introduction, “In this paper, we aim to inform and strengthen TDA practice by reviewing eight parallel collaborative approaches that seek to bridge knowledge and action.” The justification and need for this review are further explained in the text surrounding this statement (115-127). We would not be able to draft the discussion without the review of these approaches.

4. The process of creating Figure 1~4 is vitally important to review if it was scientifically rigorous process or not. While this information is provided in Appendix in the current version, I strongly recommend the authors to provide detailed explanations of these processes in the main text. We have moved this into the new methodology section (144-194).

5.It was also difficult to tell which sections are results and which sections are discussions of this paper. I assume what is provided in 3.1 are results and what is provided in 3.2 and 3.3 are discussions. This may be particular preferences of writing style, however, I would like to suggest the authors to follow IMRAD style to present the current contents they have in a clearer structure. We have shifted the structure to follow IMRAD and to clarify which parts of the paper are results.

6. “Pracademics”. “Pracademics” is stressed as one key finding in Abstract, however this idea is mentioned only once in Line 648 without any elaborations. I suggest the authors to revise the current version of abstract according to the current contents of manuscript. We have added an additional sentence (27-30) to better reflect review findings. Although the term “pracademic” is only included twice in the discussion, an entire section provides supporting references (764-777). We have added some additional detail to address this comment as well as comments made by reviewer #2. See additional sentence (752-754) as well as changes in 5.2.2.

7. Sustainability science. While the title and introduction section mention sustainability science, the main contents of the manuscript is about approaches widely applied in natural resource/conservation field. I found placing the authors’ discussion points, points raised in section 3.2 and 3.3, in sustainability science is misleading as the scope of sustainability science goes beyond natural resource/conservation field. I recommend the authors to reorganise and situation the current discussion points within natural resource/conservation field.  We have refocused the review on the ways it can inform scholars who use a transdisciplinary approach. This has resulted in a few removals of references to sustainability science (103, 597). While our expertise is in natural resources and conservation, the reviewed approaches have been used in a wide variety of fields (see Figure 2) and have implications for fields beyond just natural resources and conservation. Our literature review was also broader than just publications in natural resources/conservation, although our emphasis and baseline knowledge are in those fields. We have added a sentence in the introduction to address this (125-127).

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very good paper, which merits publication in its prsent form

 

The authros provide a realistic and comprehensive presentation on the actual situation in sustainability research using TDA, which, in my opinion is the best (or even the only) way to proceed. The references to previous work are adequate: they do not leave out significant work, but also they do not present tons of relevant work - which would not contribute significantly to the point that the paper needs to make

Two very small comments that I would like to see being addressed in the paper

Figure 1 is informative, but seeing the keywords used for that, maybe a comment stating explicitly that "there might other related work which could have used similar but different terminology to describe the application of a similar or same method" would be useful

2. I was particularly excited with the idea (and also with the word) of "pracademics". The authors suggest that sustainability research in the TDA framework requires people with specific skills, closely communicating with stakeholders and being actively involved in events and activities. I think that this is the essence of future research in general. I would suggest to the authors to make some more explicit comments regarding this issue, keeping in mind that this approach can - and should be applied - internationally. Bringing the Greek experience here, young scientists should not only be trained to acquire specific communication skills, but they should be prepared from the beginning of their studies to realize the "academic" identities are related to building relationships with stakeholders rather than to theoretical "desk" approaches. 

Author Response

Figure 1 is informative, but seeing the keywords used for that, maybe a comment stating explicitly that "there might other related work which could have used similar but different terminology to describe the application of a similar or same method" would be useful We have added a statement (134-136).

I was particularly excited with the idea (and also with the word) of "pracademics". The authors suggest that sustainability research in the TDA framework requires people with specific skills, closely communicating with stakeholders and being actively involved in events and activities. I think that this is the essence of future research in general. I would suggest to the authors to make some more explicit comments regarding this issue, keeping in mind that this approach can - and should be applied - internationally. Bringing the Greek experience here, young scientists should not only be trained to acquire specific communication skills, but they should be prepared from the beginning of their studies to realize the "academic" identities are related to building relationships with stakeholders rather than to theoretical "desk" approaches. We have added an additional sentence about pracademics (751-754) and specific examples (773-777).