Scholarlink

<p>This article analyzes the challenges and potentials of transdisciplinary research situated between scientific objectivity and political practice. Using the example of the real-world laboratory “Knowledge-Creates-Policy”, conducted at the Bremen site of the Research Institute Social Cohesion (RISC), it examines a&#xa0;co-productive attempt to institutionalize deliberative citizen participation at the municipal level. At the core lies a&#xa0;double discrepancy: on the one hand, between normative expectations regarding transformative capacity and participatory democracy; on the other hand, between institutional inertia and limited implementation opportunities. The article shows that while scientific interventions can contribute to enhancing political decision-making processes, they often fail due to structural power asymmetries, political path dependencies, and role-specific misunderstandings. Against this backdrop, the article advocates for a&#xa0;realistic reassessment of transdisciplinary scientific practice—one that does not measure success solely by political outputs, but also by the quality of learning and reflection processes. The real-world laboratory is thus understood as an example of “successful failure” that offers valuable insights for research on policy, participation, and transformation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Die doppelte Diskrepanz zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit – Erfahrungen mit einem transdisziplinären Reallabor

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月11日

查看全文
  • Günter Warsewa,
  • Jessica Nuske

摘要

This article analyzes the challenges and potentials of transdisciplinary research situated between scientific objectivity and political practice. Using the example of the real-world laboratory “Knowledge-Creates-Policy”, conducted at the Bremen site of the Research Institute Social Cohesion (RISC), it examines a co-productive attempt to institutionalize deliberative citizen participation at the municipal level. At the core lies a double discrepancy: on the one hand, between normative expectations regarding transformative capacity and participatory democracy; on the other hand, between institutional inertia and limited implementation opportunities. The article shows that while scientific interventions can contribute to enhancing political decision-making processes, they often fail due to structural power asymmetries, political path dependencies, and role-specific misunderstandings. Against this backdrop, the article advocates for a realistic reassessment of transdisciplinary scientific practice—one that does not measure success solely by political outputs, but also by the quality of learning and reflection processes. The real-world laboratory is thus understood as an example of “successful failure” that offers valuable insights for research on policy, participation, and transformation.