Research

INTRODUCTION

The transdisciplinarity concept and its use in research

Transdisciplinarity is a form of research that goes beyond the boundaries of disciplines to address and solve real-world problems (Mittelstraß 1992, as cited in Hirsh et al. 2008). Transdisciplinarity refers to mutual learning between science and society (Scholz 2000); it relies upon knowledge integration through quantitative and qualitative analyses (Scholz and Tietje 2002) to provide socially robust solutions (Gibbons and Nowotny 2001) to complex and multidimensional problems while building capacity and reaching consensus among stakeholders (Susskind et al. 1999, Scholz and Tietje 2002).

Transdisciplinarity has increased exponentially in scientific publications and literature as a concept associated with an integrative form of research (Thompson Klein 2014, Scholz and Steiner 2015). This increased use of the term has two connotations. On the one hand, it highlights the possibility of approaching science from the perspective of complex real-life problems and, on the other hand, it draws attention to the danger of using the concept superficially and labeling any research as transdisciplinary (Scholz and Steiner 2015).

The origins of disciplinarity date back to philosophical currents in the 17th century that laid the foundations of modern science (Noguera 2004). In his Discourse on the Method, Descartes changed Western thought by proposing (a) the division of a phenomenon into its elementary parts—the subject and object—and (b) the integration of everything understood into the analysis of the parts. From the subject-object epistemological division as a modern conceptual path arises the organization of knowledge around disciplines. From this comes the reduction criticized by the paradigm of complexity (Rodríguez 2017) and the basis for creating schools such as holistic schools (Peñuela 2005).

The relevance of transdisciplinary research is mainly associated with (1) overcoming the traditional scientific discourse in which modern science reduces the plurality of phenomena in nature to some basic laws (Hirsh et al. 2008, Lanz 2010); (2) underscoring that we live in an era in which humanity faces complex and multidimensional problems, such as the environmental crisis, sustainability, and violence, demanding integrative research processes (Leavy 2012); and (3) increasing the legitimacy, ownership, and accountability of research results, requiring close collaboration between researchers and nonacademic stakeholders (Hirsh et al. 2008, Lang et al. 2012, Šūmane et al. 2018).

Thus, the transdisciplinary approach promotes more efficient alternatives for solving societal issues (Urquiza et al. 2018, Zurbriggen and Sierra 2021). This research strategy recognizes complex problems because of its multidimensional nature (Carter and Williams 2019) comprising the ethical plane, focused on life and human needs, the practical imperative plane, which tries to act upon a reality to transform it, the epistemic plane, in which multiple stakeholders, processes, consequences, and durations converge and the methodological plane, focusing on how and with what to create knowledge. Their analysis requires the coordination of civil society, academia, the state, and industry to seek a consensus on the central problem from various perspectives, facing the challenge of harmonizing particular logics, practices, and knowledge (Rodríguez 2017). Transdisciplinarity allows science to work jointly with society through novel approaches that prioritize society’s participation in constructing and applying knowledge (Urquiza et al. 2018, Zurbriggen and Sierra 2021) through new social relationships that nurture governance systems.

Participatory action research as a precursor to transdisciplinarity in Colombia

Participatory action research was a growing trend in Colombia in the 1970s as an initiative of some social scientists who proposed rural sociology methodologies to assimilate the concept of “participation” and, thus, advance toward another form of development. This proposal validates the results of these field-based achievements and the perceptions of local reference groups, understanding that both farmers and researchers must have horizontal relationships, subject to subject, that favor respect and appreciation of their contributions based on their respective types of knowledge (Fals Borda 2007).

This type of research highlights the problems of using knowledge created on other continents to solve issues in Latin America, promoting linear transfer strategies and ignoring complex multiethnic and multicultural relationships (Fals Borda and Mora-Osejo 2004). The importance of understanding peasants’ deep-rooted forms of behavior and production, the permanence of societies’ cultural meanings and contents, avoiding the imposition of knowledge, and seeking common spaces of possibilities for research were emphasized (Escobar 1986).

Although transdisciplinary research has increased globally in the last decade, few works on this topic in the rural and agricultural sectors have been published in Colombia. Academic studies address how the transdisciplinary approach can change students’ paradigms to identify and engage in real problems and conceptualize training processes, favoring new perspectives for research with rural stakeholders and environments and creating holistic values, as is the case for sustainability programs (Acevedo-Osorio et al. 2020).

Some studies focus on the transdisciplinary analysis of the peasantry, its forms of production, and the need to revalue the existing links with the natural environment to protect common goods and strengthen the social fabric (Rivas et al. 2014). Others have examined communities’ perceptions of ecosystem services, their associated risks, and damages and have sought to establish how social, ecological, and scientific elements and traditional knowledge converge for a better understanding and management of territories through transdisciplinary interventions and a combination of techniques and information sources (Tovar et al. 2021). In the southwest of Colombia, another study investigated how other traditionally excluded social groups, such as Afro-descendant communities, devise strategies for survival and permanence in the territories through hydroponic food and medicinal plant garden systems in areas where cane monoculture and agribusiness predominate in the sugar industry (Vélez 2021).

AGROSAVIA’s research in the Colombian Caribbean drylands also stands out. Supported by transdisciplinarity, the researchers followed a hybrid method in the ancestral tribe territory of the Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta to establish meeting points, links, and nodes of the complex network of internal and external relations derived from their agricultural production activities without undermining their ethnicity (López López et al. 2022).

Social issues, such as migration and poverty, and environmental challenges, such as climate change, variability, and the depletion of natural resources, highlight the need for appropriate tools to assess the impact of agricultural research and benefit sustainable food production, the provision of ecosystem services, and the conservation of biodiversity without losing sight of economic indicators (Francis et al. 2008, FAO 2018, Vacca 2021). At this point, the transdisciplinary approach to agricultural research for development may cater to needs related to modern society and current agriculture (Francis et al. 2008, Spiertz and Kropff 2011, Gallardo-López et al. 2018, Carter and Williams 2019, López-Olmedo et al. 2019).

The Colombian Agricultural Research Corporation (AGROSAVIA)

AGROSAVIA is a public, decentralized, scientific-technical institution that conducts research and development, technology transfer, and technological innovation to contribute to technical change. Its origins date back to 1962, and it currently has approximately 1865 employees in 24 research centers, sites, and experimental farms. A total of 29.1% of the staff are researchers with PhD or MSc degrees, and 65% of the staff have a level of training equal to an undergraduate degree. Researchers work in seven innovation networks (cocoa, permanent crops, transitory and agro-industrial crops, fruit trees, livestock and minor species, vegetables and aromatics, and roots and tubers). Of the 613 Latin American scientific organizations categorized in Scimago in 2023, AGROSAVIA is ranked 160th; this position is on par with that of institutes such as Inta-Argentina and Inia-Chile (AGROSAVIA 2023, unpublished report).

Aware of the significance of encouraging transdisciplinary research and the challenges posed by institutional theorization, knowledge, and practice due to the diversity of concepts and the proliferation of disciplinary and interdisciplinary typologies, we propose the following questions: What has been the progress of transdisciplinary research by the institution in the last decade? Does the institution promote transdisciplinary research? Has it been possible for AGROSAVIA to go beyond the limits of disciplinarity? In this article we discuss the scientific community’s institutional perceptions of the concept, importance, and use of transdisciplinary research.

METHOD

The methodological scheme analyzes researchers’ understanding of transdisciplinarity’s definition, application, and use through survey questions (Appendix 1).

Definition and critical elements of transdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity is the research approach to address society’s knowledge demands to solve complex real-world problems, which require going beyond and integrating disciplinary paradigms. It seeks to integrate knowledge from disciplines at four levels (empirical, pragmatic, regulatory, and values) with nonacademic stakeholders’ knowledge, perspectives, and goals. Its explicit commitment is to change processes and practice transformation to achieve established goals. (AGROSAVIA 2022, unpublished report).

This definition of the transdisciplinarity concept contains three critical elements, which in turn are described as areas of analysis:

1. Role of culture in practice transformation: Taking ownership of concepts and interest in the transdisciplinary approach and research projects aimed at strengthening common and public goods.
2. Diverse and complex problems: Territorial analysis that recognizes the diversity of dimensions and their interrelationships and issues, such as the resolution and management of social or socioenvironmental conflicts, sustainability, food security and sovereignty, poverty, climate variability, and change.
3. Integration of forms of knowledge, disciplines, and stakeholders: Integration across disciplines (exact and natural sciences, social sciences, humanities); differences among multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches; coordination of nonacademic stakeholders (local, regional, and national governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and agencies, private organizations and entities); identification of suitable opportunities for knowledge transmission, discussion, feedback, and collective conclusions between stakeholders; and participation of stakeholders throughout the research life cycle.

Survey design and implementation

A survey format comprising open- and closed-ended questions distributed in five sections was designed: (i) Introduction: Age, position, and time in the institution; (ii) Line 1. Role of culture in practice transformation; (iii) Line 2. Diverse and complex problems; (iv) Line 3. Integration of forms of knowledge, disciplines, and stakeholders; and (v) Closing: Projects perceived as transdisciplinary, and advantages and limitations of the research centers using transdisciplinary research (Fig. 1).

The instrument was validated in a pilot phase and subsequently applied in 26 virtual workshops through the Microsoft Teams® platform during the second half of 2021. For this purpose, digital clickers (TurningPoint®) were used to collect individuals’ primary information in virtual and in-person group settings in an agile, playful, reliable, and interactive way between moderators and respondents. This activity was complemented by discussions of the questions and answers, enriching the process and quality of the information obtained.

The number of people surveyed was calculated using the stratified sampling method and the best allocation sample size formula to determine the value of the proportion (Kish 1965, Cochran 1977, Särndal et al. 2003, Scheaffer et al. 2007). According to the organizational chart, the researchers were categorized as at the doctoral (22.3%), master’s (32.5%), or undergraduate level (45.4%).

Because the p value was unknown, 0.5 was used to obtain a larger sample size than needed (Kish 1965). The estimation error was set at 0.05, and the significance level was set at 0.1. The resulting sample included 201 surveys.

The data collected using TurningPoint® were exported to an Excel database, purged, and recoded to estimate descriptive statistics. The qualitative information derived from the open-ended questions was analyzed through word clouds, systematized into emerging categories, and quantified in frequency tables.

RESULTS

A total of 200 surveys were conducted, 53% of which involved men and 47% of which involved women. The participants were primarily 31–40 years old (46%), followed by 41–50 years old (27%), and 51–60 years old (15%). They were affiliated with 21 of the institution’s 24 research centers, sites, and experimental farms across the country. Regarding the academic level of the respondents, 31% had a doctorate, and 42% had a master’s degree.

Culture toward transformation

The survey results show a greater tendency to consider transdisciplinary work as “collaborative work between disciplines,” with 72% of the respondents reporting transdisciplinary work. The main terms used to explain this concept are research, discipline, difference, area, knowledge, and problem (Fig. 2). When inquiring about the critical elements of the transdisciplinarity concept, 44% reported not knowing them, indicating knowledge of the concept is superficial; 17% identified the qualities and values of people among the key elements, and 15% emphasized collaboration between multiple disciplines (Fig. 3). Upon sharing the definition adopted by the institution, more than 80% considered this approach to be important. We found that more than 35% are unaware of the differences between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research, while those who acknowledge differences consider them to relate to the degree of discipline integration.

Diverse and complex problems

The analysis of the concept of territory showed that 41% of those surveyed defined it comprehensively, while 54% understood it in terms of its political-administrative aspects. The main terms used to explain the concept of territory are area, geography, space, culture, social, characteristics, and region (Fig. 4). Regarding the tools researchers use to prioritize the problems and challenges in which they would invest their research efforts, 43% stressed that prioritization is based on the specific needs described in digital instruments that compile the sector’s needs by production chain and region.

Moreover, 38% pointed out the importance of agreeing on problems and challenges with the stakeholders in the territory because they will participate throughout the studies. The preceding discussion suggests that the institution drives collaborative work with local territorial stakeholders.

When inquiring about the usefulness of prioritization tools, 34% stated that those currently used do not allow for tackling diverse and complex problems, which reflects the need to continue promoting the participation of nonacademic stakeholders in prioritization. However, agreement with other stakeholders implies the availability of financial resources, which are generally scarce.

Knowledge integration

Knowledge integration was approached in terms of disciplines and stakeholders. After clarifying the multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary concepts, 75% of the respondents considered transdisciplinary research to be the least used in the research centers, 38% of those surveyed considered integrating disciplines to be promoted occasionally, 34% often and very frequently, and 20% rarely or exceedingly rarely. Among the promotional settings, 27% mentioned the project formulation process, 25% recognized the work in the institution’s networks, and only 9% referred to seminars, committees, and academic events. Finally, 24% were unaware of the opportunities offered by the institution for discipline integration.

Concerning the integration of nonacademic stakeholders, 34% of the researchers considered that the institution occasionally promotes their integration, 31% believe such promotion is frequent and very frequent, and 27% believe that it is rare or exceedingly rare. When referring to the mechanisms through which the institution promotes integration, 20% mention being unaware of them, 12% consider that integration takes place through transfer projects and participation in calls, and 8% say it is through the signing of agreements with producers and, in equal proportion, with their involvement in roundtables and forums.

Finally, 75% of the respondents stated that nonacademic stakeholders participate in result dissemination, 61% in project performance, 43% in the definition of problems or challenges, and 23% in problem formulation. These figures reflect the importance of increasing the participation of nonacademic stakeholders in problem definition and formulation.

Advances and opportunities in the use of the transdisciplinary approach by the institution

Sixty percent of those surveyed stated that they knew about one to three transdisciplinary projects in the institution, and 21% were unaware of projects based on this approach. When inquiring about transdisciplinary projects, four obtained at least five mentions, representing 1.1% of the total projects performed in the 2017–2021 period (380 projects, 76 per year).

These projects, which lasted at least three years and were completed in the last decade with internal and external financing, contribute to the understanding and resolution of complex problems and innovation in territories, resilience to climate variability and change, the loss of agrobiodiversity, and food security and sovereignty. Additionally, the projects address issues in more than one territory; thus, they have methods that recognize each zone’s socioeconomic, production, and environmental differences and the relevance of the multiple stakeholders with whom it is necessary to interact.

When inquiring about the perception of how many researchers work within a transdisciplinary approach, 64% mentioned knowing between one and five researchers. From 2016 to 2021, the average number of collaborators with master’s and doctoral degrees was 352.

Concerning the institution’s advantages in promoting transdisciplinary research (Fig. 5), the institution’s human capital in terms of the number of researchers (48%) and their disciplines and the infrastructure and national coverage (16%) are recognized; and close to 10% list the institution’s interaction with other stakeholders and its recognition and credibility as advantages.

Finally, concerning the limitations in promoting transdisciplinary research, 27% agree that the characteristics and behaviors of researchers associated with individual work, competition, and resistance to change are barriers to promoting transdisciplinary research (Fig. 6). Other limitations are arduous and complex administrative processes (25%) and a lack of resources to conduct processes with local stakeholders (26%). The different variables and results in line with the transdisciplinary approach are described below (Table 1).

DISCUSSION

The growing confluence of disciplines and methods for understanding, explaining, and managing complex problems is premised on integrating knowledge. The possibility of disciplinary interrelationship or dialog underlies the question of how to coordinate them. In the search for answers, some strategies have emerged that explicitly debate the paradigm of fragmented simplifications.

Although the three approaches (multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary) all question how to address human problems, they differ on the set of criteria and rules according to which the truth of statements and the legitimacy of knowledge in modernity are settled (Rodríguez 2017); that is, they question the modern paradigm, because, in the real world, there is no such thing as simple, only simplified. Nonetheless, these concepts have essential differences in terms of integrating forms of knowledge, the relationships between disciplines and stakeholders (Tress et al. 2006), methodological approaches, and the reasons that one approach or another is promoted.

Although it is evident that the respondents are familiar with the meaning of each of the three approaches, indistinct and arbitrary management underlies their use; that is, researchers do not have precise and correct definitions that, from the institutional discourse, establish the characteristics, constituent parts, and scope of the types of research and the differences between them. Nonetheless, the respondents demonstrated a clear understanding of independent research disciplines.

Scientific method-based research has laid the foundation for and developed specialized projects with the juxtaposition of disciplines and, in some cases, with the application of complex methods, as suggested by the work of Edgar Morin (García 2006). A demonstration of this is the survey results on the lack of knowledge of transdisciplinary projects; 60% of respondents stated they knew about only 1–3 projects that used this approach, while 27% were unaware of any such projects. With this exercise, research centers have initiated an analysis of transdisciplinarity on their agenda, although there is no clear idea of how many projects follow a transdisciplinary approach.

In the specific case of transdisciplinarity, the results show a generalized definition of the concept, regardless of education level, which does not coincide with the definition adopted by the institution. Thus, the conceptual incorporation and comprehension and the inclusion of new rationalities that develop logic differences from that set up by classical science are the basis for understanding the scope of this approach. It is not about dispensing disciplinary specificities (Vilar 1997) but rather complements the diverse levels of reality provided by academic (disciplines) and nonacademic knowledge.

Despite the conceptual inaccuracy of the transdisciplinary approach, once the concept is clarified, the respondents perceive it as important and particularly important for agricultural research. Nevertheless, this inaccuracy limits the assertiveness of determining when transdisciplinary or other research is used according to context and associated problematization. It also restricts possible methods and operational tools for specific situations that give rise to feasible research and a complex corpus of knowledge for complex realities (Vilar 1997) from transdisciplinary premises.

The notion of territory has gone beyond the traditional concept adopted since the beginning of the 19th century. It was previously defined by geography as an area or extension of land in which owners exercise ownership and control. It is static, its content endures over time, it is duly delimited with borders that separate it from other territories, and it can be measured, regulated, and standardized for proper administration or management (Monnet 1999, unpublished manuscript).

In recent decades, however, the territory concept has been conceived as a space of identity reference to support activities in which social relations are permanently created. It emphasizes the system of geographic stakeholders and their interrelationships to infer space management and the networks that comprise a fabric whose structure is built through community partnerships or links (Muchnik et al. 2011).

The results of the surveys indicate that promoting, appropriating, and using an integrated concept of territory that recognizes the different elements of the environmental, socioeconomic, institutional, and cultural contexts beyond geographical and political-administrative limits, along with stakeholder networks and their interactions that comprise diverse and complex territorial issues, is still challenging. As an institution, the importance of approaching the compression of these issues in territories as a starting point for developing the research process is recognized; in this way, researchers prioritize their technical investigations within territories, as described in government platforms.

Nevertheless, it is evident that there is a need to complement the research prioritization with the perspectives of local and regional stakeholders who understand in detail the territorial context in a way that goes beyond productive aspects and considers elements such as social, socioenvironmental, migratory, infrastructure, and communication-related conflicts, among others.

Path toward the transdisciplinary approach

The results show that researchers are interested in advancing the transdisciplinary approach because it is recognized as important by most of the researchers surveyed. Some projects are perceived as transdisciplinary, highlighting the diversity and quality of human capital in a network. Nonetheless, it is necessary to define one or several paths that ease the use of the transdisciplinary approach by the institution, for which three areas are considered:

Attitudes toward transdisciplinary projects: Researchers’ attitudes toward transdisciplinary approaches are a limiting element of this research. It is worth highlighting that irrespective of the age of the researchers, there was no statistically significant difference between the phrases used to define transdisciplinarity or its associated key components. In seeking to guide how to move toward the use of this approach, the literature indicates various elements, such as the interest and intention of the researchers, the level of commitment to discipline integration, and the presence of nonacademic stakeholders (Mitchell et al. 2015), that must be considered when selecting transdisciplinary project coordinators.

Recently, Guimarães et al. (2019) and Donovan et al. (2022) listed the characteristics, or competencies or capacities, that favor the use of transdisciplinary research, grouped as follows:

(a) Individual: At an individual level, the researcher must understand complex social and environmental factors, dominate multiple disciplines, emphasize integration, question disciplinarity, and derive satisfaction from the possibility of being able to trigger changes in society, openness and tolerance for ideas contrary to one’s own, acceptance of the unknown, adaptability and flexibility, curiosity, and creativity.

(b) Collective: At the group level, there is a need for shared accountability of financial resources, distributed leadership, achieving consensus, managing conflicts, building and maintaining networks, and social awareness.

(c) Cognitive: Cognitive competencies refer to the ability to publish in a disciplinary journal; differentiate, conciliate, and synthesize data and knowledge; integrate knowledge; and compare and contrast different methods and approaches.

(d) Contextual: Contextual abilities allow the researcher to recognize the multiple stakeholders, social structures, sites, problems, and interests of stakeholders.

Although the importance of these competencies in promoting transdisciplinary research is recognized, the academic environment does not promote them because there is a tension between the historically established methods of knowledge production through disciplines and the urgent necessity of expanding and changing such an approach (Guimarães et al. 2019). Thus, in the absence of formal training in transdisciplinary research approaches, offering training in teamwork and complex thinking could promote the collaborative success of a transdisciplinary team (Archibald et al. 2023), as described next.

(i) Tools to address transdisciplinarity involve offering information, concepts, positive internal and external experiences in transdisciplinary research, and methodological solutions to use and implement this approach. Arteaga et al. (2021) emphasized the relevance of having opportunities to foster dialogue, discuss ways of understanding inter- and transdisciplinarity, and strengthen the dissemination of the achievements of the transdisciplinary approach to overcome the resistance to work under it. Cristóbal et al. (2021) suggested defining methodological tools and practices that help readers understand the context, reviewing the attitudes of researchers and facilitators to favor the participatory process, and becoming aware of the impact of actions on different scales and areas.

(ii) Operationalizing the transdisciplinary approach in research centers means having flexible schemes that integrate both disciplinary knowledge and nonacademic stakeholders throughout the research process (ideation, formulation, performance, evaluation, and transfer). It includes the availability of resources to advance management processes in the field with local stakeholders and recognizing and encouraging researchers who conduct transdisciplinary processes. On this point, Hernández et al. (2016) underscored the importance of flexible horizontal structures that promote collaboration and the creation of methodologies that meet stakeholders’ needs.

(iii) Analyzing the evolution of the transdisciplinary approach in research refers to having indicators that periodically assess the use of the transdisciplinary approach regarding culture, tools, researchers, projects, and operations, among others. Arteaga et al. (2021) noted the importance of defining indicators to measure results transparently, facilitate the analysis of transdisciplinary advances and developments, and redirect future efforts of the institution.

CONCLUSIONS

The results offer elements of analysis helpful for Latin American agricultural research centers, which are mixed in nature (publicly or privately financed) and face strong administrative and budget restrictions yet are also interested in moving toward interdisciplinary research. This approach can guide teamwork toward formulating and executing research projects that seek to contribute solutions to complex problems.

The concept of transdisciplinarity and how it permeates research processes are relatively ignored; however, the need to incorporate the transdisciplinary approach in research is revealed, recognizing the link between agricultural research and development. For this, administrative changes must be implemented, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and collaborative work bases strengthened, and the approach to complex problems with stakeholders in the territories of influence facilitated.

The transdisciplinary approach requires gradual processes for lasting coordination with stakeholders in territories, building bonds of trust, taking advantage of differential capacities, and recognizing nonacademic knowledge within scientific activity for the collective construction of knowledge. This implies other changes, such as:

(i) Having a systemic view of the territory that goes beyond production systems and acknowledges social, economic, and environmental elements, among others; understanding the local context; overcoming disciplinary barriers; and understanding the territory comprehensively.

(ii) Advancing efficiently in signing and formalizing commitments, guaranteeing intellectual property rights and the availability of resources during the initiatives, which are frequently limited in transdisciplinary projects because the calls for research proposals usually require clear objectives and detailed budgets for each activity, preventing having prior resources for the management and establishment of agreements with nonacademic stakeholders.

(iii) Analyzing and considering, from the institutional culture, the training of researchers in paradigmatic terms and providing dialogic opportunities to move from a fragmented science to one that brings together forms of knowledge and provides answers to the world’s complexity. Thus, researchers are expected to acknowledge, respect, and value the knowledge of various stakeholders, and research efforts should reflect consensus without prioritizing individual interests.

Although there have been advances in recognizing the knowledge, use, and relevance of transdisciplinary approaches, promoting such approaches has given rise to new questions: Where do the funds for transdisciplinary projects come from? What are the disciplinary backgrounds of the researchers who promote collaborative work? Who can be transdisciplinary project leaders in research centers? What is transdisciplinarity like in other agricultural research centers in Latin America? What are the main methodologies implemented in rural transdisciplinary projects?

LITERATURE CITED

Acevedo-Osorio, Á., S. Hofmann-Souki, and J. Cruz Morales. 2020. Holistic competence orientation in sustainability-related study programmes: lessons from implementing transdisciplinary student team research in Colombia, China, Mexico and Nicaragua. Sustainability Science 15:233-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00687-8

Archibald, M., M. Lawless, M. Pinero de Plaza, and A. Kitson. 2023. How transdisciplinary research teams learn to do knowledge translation (KT), and how KT in turn impacts transdisciplinary research: a realist evaluation and longitudinal case study. Health Research Policy and Systems 21:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00967-x

Arteaga C., J. Lara, J. Gallardo, C. Jiménez, A. Flores, R. Gutiérrez, and J. Núñez. 2021. Los caminos a la inter y transdisciplina de la Universidad Iberoamericana. DIDAC 78:88-107. https://doi.org/10.48102/didac.2021..78_JUL-DIC.81

Carter, L., and L. Williams. 2019. Ethics to match complexity in agricultural research for development. Development in Practice 29(7):912-926. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2019.1606159

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques. Third edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA.

Cristóbal, M., J. Rosell, N. González, A. González, A. Gutiérrez, R. Orozco, M. Pérez, and C. Suárez. 2021. Facilitación de procesos participativos. Pages 81-102 in J. Merçon, coord. 2021. Investigación transdisciplinaria e investigación-acción participativa. Conocimiento y acción para la transformación. Serie Construyendo lo Común, number 2. CopItarXives y Red de Socioecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Ciudad de México, México.

Donovan, C., A. Michales, and J. Moon. 2022. Capabilities for transdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation 31(1):145-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab038

Escobar, A. 1986. La invención del desarrollo en Colombia. Lecturas de economía 20:9-35. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4833620 https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.le.n20a7996

Fals Borda, O. 2007. La investigación-acción en convergencias disciplinarias. Latin American Studies Association Forum XXXVIII(4):17-22. https://forum.lasaweb.org//files/vol38/LASAForum-Vol38-Issue4.pdf

Fals Borda, O., and L. Mora-Osejo. 2004. La superación del Eurocentrismo. Polis Revista Latinoamericana 7. http://journals.openedition.org/polis/6210

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2018. Taller Internacional sobre oportunidades y desafíos de los sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles en América Latina y el Caribe. Report 6 and 7 June 2017, Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/es/c/I8345ES/

Francis, C. A., G. Lieblein, A. Breland, L. Salomonsson, U. Geber, N. Sriskandarajah, and V. Langer. 2008. Transdisciplinary research for a sustainable agriculture and food sector. Agronomy Journal 100(3):771-776. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0073

Gallardo-López, F., A. Hernández, P. Cisneros, and A. Linares. 2018. Development of the concept of agroecology in Europe: a review. Sustainability 10(4):1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041210

García, R. 2006. Sistemas complejos. Conceptos, método y fundamentación epistemológica de la investigación interdisciplinaria. Editorial Gedisa, España.

Gibbons, M., and H. Nowotny. 2001. The potential of transdisciplinarity. Pages 67-80 in J. Thompson Klein, R. Häberli, R. W. Scholz, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, A. Bill, and M. Welti, editors. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8419-8_7

Guimarães, M., C. Pohl, O. Bina, and M. 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

Hernández, J., A. Chumaceiro, I. Reyes, and C. Argumedos. 2016. Universidad en América Latina, transdisciplina y redes de investigación colaborativas. Revista Científica Teorías, Enfoques y Aplicaciones en las Ciencias Sociales 8(18):11-18.

Hirsh, G., S. Biber-Llemn, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, H. Hoomann-Riem, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, and E. Zemp. 2008. The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. In G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, E. G. Zemp, editors. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Kish, L. 1965. Survey sampling. First edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, , USA.

Lang, J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7:25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lanz, R. 2010. Diez preguntas sobre transdisciplina. Revista de estudios transdisciplinarios 2(1):11-21.

Leavy, P. 2012. Transdisciplinarity and training the next generation of researchers. Problem-centered approaches to research and problem-based learning. International Review of Qualitative Research 5(2):205-223. https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2012.5.2.205

López-Olmedo, R., M. Perez, and N. Gutiérrez. 2019. Participation of Mexican civil society organizations in scientific publications. Scientometrics 119(1):55-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03027-w

López López, A., A. Tofiño Rivera, D. Ospina Cortés, and Y. Rozo Leguizamón. 2022. Lineamientos de una metodología híbrida para la vinculación científico-tecnológica de los pueblos ancestrales de Colombia. Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria (AGROSAVIA). https://doi.org/10.21930/agrosavia.analisis.7405606

Mitchell, C., D. Cordell, and D. Fam. 2015. Beginning at the end: the outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures 65:86-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.007

Muchnik, J., J. Sanz, and G. Torres. 2011. Sistemas agroalimentarios localizados: estado de las investigaciones y perspectivas. Estudios Latinoamericanos. Nueva época 27-28: 33-49. https://doi.org/10.22201/cela.24484946e.2011.27-28.49375

Noguera de Echeverri, A. 2004. El reencantamiento del mundo. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá D.C., Colombia.

Peñuela, A. 2005. La transdisciplinariedad. Más allá de los conceptos, la dialéctica. Andamios. Revista de Investigación Social 1(2):43-77. https://doi.org/10.29092/uacm.v0i2.492

Rivas, Á. and H. V. Quintero. 2014. Reappraising the multiple functions of traditional agriculture within the context of building rural development investigative skills. Agronomía Colombiana 32(1):130-137. https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v32n1.40185

Rodríguez, L. 2017. Complejidad, interdisciplina y política en la teoría de los sistemas complejos, de Rolando García. Civilizar Ciencias Sociales y Humanas 17(33):221-242. https://doi.org/10.22518/16578953.910

Särndal, C., B. Swensson, and J. Wretman. 2003. Model assisted survey sampling. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Scheaffer, R., W. Mendenhall, and L. Ott. 2007. Elementos de muestreo. Sexta ed. International Thomson, Madrid, Spain.

Scholz, R. W. 2000. The mutual learning sessions. Pages 117-129 in J. Thompson Klein, R. Häberli, R. W. Scholz, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, A. Bill, and M. Welti, editors. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8419-8_11

Scholz, R. W., and G. Steiner. 2015. The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II—what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustainability Science 10:653-671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0327-3

Scholz, R. W., and O. Tietje. 2002. Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984027

Spiertz, J., and M. Kropff. 2011. Adaptation of knowledge systems to changes in agriculture and society: the case of the Netherlands. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 58:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2011.03.002

Šūmane, S., I. Kunda, K. Knickel, A. Strauss, T. Tisenkopfs, I. des los Rios, M. Rivera, T. Chebach, and A. Askenazy. 2018. Local and farmers’ knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 59:232-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020

Susskind, L., S. McKearnen, and J. Thomas. 1999. The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231389

Thompson Klein, J. 2014. Discourses of transdisciplinarity: looking back to the future. Futures 63:68-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.008

Tovar, Y., F. Escobedo, and N. Clerici. 2021. Community-based importance and quantification of ecosystem services, disservices, drivers, and Neotropical dry forests in a rural Colombian municipality. Forests 12(7):919. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070919

Tress, B., G. Tress, and G. Fry. 2006. Defining concepts and the process of knowledge production in integrative research. Pages 13-26 in B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, and P. Opdam, editors. From landscape research to landscape planning. Aspects of integration, education and application. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Urquiza, A., C. Amigo, M. Billi, G. Brandão, and B. Morales. 2018. Metalogue as a transdisciplinary collaboration tool. Cinta de Moebio 62:182-198. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-554X2018000200182

Vacca, G. 2021. Tendencias de las investigaciones en innovación y marketing del sector agropecuario en Colombia entre los años 2010 y 2020. Thesis. Business Management School, Universidad Santo Tomas Tunja, Colombia.

Vélez, I., A. Torres, S. Bernal, I. Muriel, H. Moreno, S. Alzate, D. Bahamon, and D. Vanegas. 2021. Afrocolombian struggles for food, land, and culture: the case of El Tiple. Environmental Engineering Science 38(5). https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2020.0282

Vilar, S. 1997. La Nueva racionalidad. Comprender la complejidad con método transdisciplinario. Editorial Kairós, Barcelona, Spain.

Zurbriggen, C., and M. Sierra. 2021. Transición hacia un futuro sostenible. ¿qué aporta la investigación transdisciplinaria? Utopía y praxis Latinoamericana 26(94):158-176.