Creating Inspiring Workshops and Courses in Transdisciplinarity: A Guide - Manual / Resource - Page 114
•
McGreavy, B., K. Hutchins, H. Smith, L. Lindenfeld & L. Silka (2013)
Addressing the complexities of boundary work in sustainability
science through communication. Sustainability, 5, 4195–4221.
•
Morris, B. S., P. Chrysochou, J. D. Christensen, J. L. Orquin, J. Barraza,
P. J. Zak & P. Mitkidis (2019). Stories vs. facts: Triggering emotion and
action-taking on climate change. Climatic Change, 154, 19–36.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
p. 109
Moser, S., S. Meerow, J. Arnott & E. Jack-Scott (2019). The turbulent
world of resilience: Interpretations and themes for transdisciplinary
dialogue. Climatic Change, 153, 21–40.
•
Tikochinski, R. & E. Babad (2022). Perceived epistemic authority
(source credibility) of a TV interviewer moderates the media bias
effect caused by his nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
46, 215–229.
Embracing differences, tensions, and conflicts: Diversity of
societal actors
•
Moser, S.C. (2017). Communicating climate change adaptation and
tesilience. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Climate Science, ed. M.
Nisbet, 30pp. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnold, M. G. (2022). The challenging role of researchers coping with
tensions, dilemmas and paradoxes in transdisciplinary settings.
Sustainable Development, 30(2), 326–342.
•
Moser, S. C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication
research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What
more is there to say? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7,
345–369.
Bärnthaler, R. (2020). Conflict, controversy, compromise, and
compression: The pragmatics of transdisciplinary (development)
projects. Advances in Southeast Asian Studies, 13(2), 193–210.
•
Patt, A. G. & E. U. Weber (2014). Perceptions and communication
strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 219–232.
Hull, R.B., Robertson, D., Mortimer, M. (2018). Wicked leadership
competencies for sustainability professionals: Definition, pedagogy,
and assessment. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 11 (4),
171–177.
•
Mitchell, C., Cordell, D., & Fam, D. (2015). Beginning at the end: The
outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary
research. Futures, 65, 86–96.
•
Seethaler, S., J. H. Evans, C. Gere & R. M. Rajagopalan (2019). Science,
values, and science communication: Competencies for pushing
beyond the deficit model. Science Communication, 41, 378–388.
Reed, M.S. A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris,
C. Prell, C.H. Quinn, & L.C. Stringer (2009). Who’s in and why? A
typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–
1949.
•
Staffa, R. K., M. Riechers & B. Martín-López (2022). A feminist ethos
for caring knowledge production in transdisciplinary sustainability
science. Sustainability Science, 17, 45–63.
Schmidt, L. & M. Pröpper (2017). Transdisciplinarity as a real-world
challenge: A case study on a North-South collaboration. Sustainability
Science, 12(3), 365–379.
•
Suldovsky, B., McGreavy, B., and Lindenfeld, L. (2018). Evaluating
epistemic commitments and science communication practice in
transdisciplinary research. Science Communication, 40(4), 499–523.
Schneider, F., & Buser, T. (2019). Promising degrees of stakeholder
interaction in research for sustainable development. Sustainability
Science, 13, 129–142.
•
Siebenhüner, B. (2018). Conflicts in transdisciplinary research:
Reviewing literature and analysing a case of climate adaptation in
Northwestern Germany. Ecological Economics, 154, 117–127.
Salama, S. & K. Aboukoura (2018). Role of emotions in climate change
communication. In Handbook of Climate Change Communication: Vol.
1: Theory of Climate Change Communication, eds. W. Leal Filho, E.
Manolas, A. M. Azul, U. M. Azeiteiro & H. McGhie, 137–150. Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Temper, L. & D. Del Bene (2016). Transforming knowledge creation for
environmental and epistemic justice. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 20, 41–49.
References
