AK Science and Practice

The AFK Working Group on “Science and Practice” hosted the fishbowl panel “Multidirectional Knowledge Transfer as a Contribution to Transdisciplinarity in Peace and Conflict Research,” which Christoph Weller opened by highlighting the practical orientation of peace and conflict research and sharing his observations on knowledge transfer: Although transfer is demanded more than ever in research and funding programs, it is scarcely rewarded by the academic system. However, if the opportunities of transdisciplinarity for peace and conflict research were to be illuminated, transfer would be an essential element, for all three characteristics of transdisciplinarity depend on successful transfer: (1) In order for research to be problem-oriented, researchers must understand which practical problems are actually to be addressed; for this reason, knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary research is not merely a supplement to the publication of research findings at the very end of the research process, but rather occurs at its outset, with the researchers themselves serving as the recipients of this transfer between practice and science. (2) The methodology of transdisciplinary research, in which non-scientific knowledge is to be brought into a productive connection with scientific knowledge, is also based on successful transfer, within which the other type of knowledge must be understood in order to adequately assess its relevance to successful problem-solving. (3) And the implementation of collective knowledge-generation processes involving scientists and practitioners within the transdisciplinary research process—as the third hallmark of transdisciplinarity—is, in fact, constantly subject to the conditions that lead to the failure of knowledge transfer. However, if these three requirements of transdisciplinary research could be reasonably met through successful transfer, what is commonly referred to as “transfer” would become completely superfluous. For the relevant practitioners are, after all, integrated into the joint research from the very beginning, and communication with practitioners is already taking place continuously within the transdisciplinary research process; it therefore does not need to be added as a supplement at the end. 

This introduction to the fishbowl panel was followed by three discussion contributions from colleagues with experience in knowledge transfer, which focused, among other things, on how knowledge transfer in peace and conflict research and practice differs from that in other fields of research and practice; in addition, experiences from three different institutional contexts were presented: Christina Pauls (University of Augsburg), as Executive Director of the “Augsburg Peace Transfer Center,” reported on the needs assessments conducted in collaboration with practitioners at the outset of the center’s respective activities. The center’s mission is to contribute, through various formats and forms of cooperation, to the transfer of expertise from peace and conflict research into the practical fields of the “City of Peace” Augsburg. This is also related to the fact that the Augsburg Peace Transfer Center is already a transdisciplinary institution due to its joint sponsorship by the city and the university. Ginger Schmitz, Executive Director of the Platform for Civil Conflict Management, emphasized that knowledge transfer is already inherent in the network’s very self-conception as a “platform,” but is currently gaining increasing importance because the field of peace work is under considerable pressure—a challenge that can be more effectively addressed through successful knowledge transfer. In this context, she sees a “transfer quadrangle” at work involving academia, practice, politics, and the public, whereby knowledge transfer largely constitutes a form of discourse work. At the same time, she noted that it should not be overlooked that knowledge transfer depends to a significant extent on individual people and is difficult to institutionalize. Drawing on his own experience, Christof Starke (Halle Peace Circle & Cooperative Network for Democratic Conflict Management) distinguished five different areas of knowledge transfer: on the one hand, the development of theory in which practitioners are directly involved, and on the other hand, research developed from practice, for which, however, resources were usually lacking. In his view, teaching assignments for practitioners at universities are also a valuable form of knowledge transfer, as is the participation of scholars in exchange and meeting spaces created with a practical focus. And in his opinion, both practitioners and scholars need to do more to facilitate knowledge transfer toward politics, the public, and society. These four introductory remarks provided the subsequent fishbowl discussion with numerous ideas and a wealth of experiences, enabling a discussion with all attendees about the specifics and the future of knowledge transfer in peace and conflict research and practice.