1

Please cite this document as follows:

Sarkki, Simo, Heikkinen, Hannu I., & Karjalainen, Timo P. 2013. Sensitivity in transdisciplinary

projects: Case of reindeer management in northern Finland. Land Use Policy 34: 183–192.

Link to Land Use Policy journal: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy/

Sensitivity in transdisciplinary projects:

A case of reindeer management in Finland

Simo Sarkki, Hannu I. Heikkinen and Timo P. Karjalainen Simo Sarkki (Corresponding author) Thule Institute, PO Box 7300 FI-90014, University of Oulu, Finland Telephone: +358 40-510 4149 Email: simo.sarkki@oulu.fi Hannu I. Heikkinen Cultural Anthropology, PO Box 1000 FI-90014, University of Oulu, Finland. Telephone: +358 40-742 4238 Email: hannu.i.heikkinen@oulu.fi Timo P. Karjalainen Thule Institute, PO Box 7300 FI-90014, University of Oulu, Finland Telephone: +358 400 662 171 Email: timo.p.karjalainen@oulu.fi

Highlights:

- Problem oriented TD knowledge co-production faces various challenges

- Roles of ‘reflective scientist’, ‘facilitator’, ‘intermediary’ and ‘capacity builder’

- To perform roles successfully various sensitivities are needed

- Acknowledging ‘owners’ of policy process and creating ownership to TD knowledge helps

- Early and iterative multi-actor participation useful in TD knowledge production

2

Abstract

Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary projects can help to achieve a more comprehensive, bal-

anced and relevant understanding of real-world problems and their potential solutions. In this paper,

a project on reindeer management in northern Finland, RENMAN, is used to identify and examine

some challenges that transdisciplinary projects face regarding knowledge integration and the roles

taken by scientists to overcome the challenges as well as to explain why integration has or has not

been successful. We identify and examine four challenges to knowledge integration: 1) the need for

integration during the design of study questions and settings, 2) the need to manage competitive

deliberative settings, 3) the potential mismatch between providing ”optimal” policy recommenda-

tions and outputs integrating facts and values, and 4) the need to harness the benefits of the process

to contribute to managing the problem in the future. Scientist in the RENMAN project used four

roles to cope with these challenges: reflective scientist, intermediary, facilitator or capacity builder.

Our key argument is that the metaphor of sensitivity can often explain the successes and failures

regarding integration pursued by using the above mentioned roles. Sensitivity in transdisciplinary

research encompasses attention towards the needs and problem definitions of knowledge holders

and knowledge users, respect towards various world views, divergent perspectives and forms of

knowledge, and the understanding of biases, power relations and possible marginalizations embed-

ded in and resulting from knowledge production. Finally, flexibility to act on the knowledge gained

through sensitivity is needed to design evolving processes able to contribute to the resolution of

complex real-world problems.

Keywords: Complex environmental problem; Co-production of knowledge; Reindeer herding; Sen-

sitivity; Stakeholder participation; Transdisciplinarity

3

1. Introduction

Current environmental problems are often unpredictable, include multiple stakeholders, values and

world views, and afford no simple solutions (Carley and Christie, 2000). A typical intractable envi-

ronmental dilemma involves different formulations of the problem by the stakeholders and different

scales of the effects and preferred solutions (Rein and Schön, 1994). The uncertainty inherent in

complex problems limits the ability of the sciences to produce objective, valid and reliable knowl-

edge (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). How can scientific efforts contribute to solving such problems?

Scientific disciplines often have a preset variety of possible study questions as well as reliable and

valid methods and concepts considered appropriate for analytical purposes (Klein, 1990; Bruce et

al., 2004). Lawrence and Després (2004) note that the shortcomings of traditional research are a

logical outcome of the workings of experts who are narrow-sighted and address issues in separation

from their societal contexts. It has been claimed that the understanding of real-world complexity

requires more holistic approaches and the integration of results produced by various disciplines

(Kinzig, 2001). Therefore, the effort to integrate different knowledges has expanded beyond the

academic forums to the participation of a number of societal actors. The integration of knowledges

aims at producing applicable and socially robust knowledge for environmental decision making in

practice (see Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2001). Transdisciplinarity is an approach empha-

sizing the integration of disciplines and knowledges of various stakeholders in order to address real-

world problems (Klein, 2004 b; Pohl, 2011; Glass et al., 2013).

The concept of transdisciplinarity emerged in the 1970s. Initially, a top-down approach was used

and the coordination of knowledge integration was managed with no participation from outside of

science (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008). However, particularly during the 1990s, developments regard-

ing concepts such as sustainable development, action research (Whyte, 1991), post-normal science

(Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993), Mode 2 science (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2001) and

4

science-policy interface (van den Hove, 2007) contributed to the stronger inclusion of a variety of

stakeholders into transdisciplinary projects. With the enlarging participatory agendas, transdiscipli-

nary approaches evolved towards being a promising avenue for engaging with complex problems

focusing on the practical needs regarding stakeholders’ dilemmas by integrating diverse knowl-

edges (Klein, 2004b; Höchtl et al., 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008). Integration takes place via

knowledge co-production processes (e.g., Jasanoff, 2004; Lemos and Morehouse, 2005; Lövbrand,

2011) involving various disciplines and societal actors (Pohl et al., 2010).

The objective of this article is to identify and examine some challenges that transdisciplinary pro-

jects face regarding knowledge integration and the roles taken by transdisciplinary scientists to

overcome the challenges, and to explain why in some cases integration has been successful and why

it has failed in others. The key aim of integration is to achieve a more comprehensive or balanced

and relevant understanding of a real-world problem and its potential solutions. In general terms,

integration means combining epistemological, conceptual and practical elements that were not re-

lated before, and it is one of the core challenges in the co-production of knowledge. Integration

aims to produce shared understanding of the problem as well as its causes and solutions, but weaker

integration may also take place via finding a common language or mutually understandable bound-

ary objects through which the issue can be discussed (Pohl et al., 2010).

Our key argument is that the metaphor of sensitivity can, in many cases, explain the successes and

failures regarding integration. The metaphor of sensitivity implies that somebody is vulnerable and

easily hurt. Sensitivity can also mean that someone is sensitive about or has an aversion towards a

certain issue. Finally, sensitivity implies being cautious and respectful towards something, e.g., lo-

cal contexts (Oxford Dictionary, 2012).

5

We use the RENMAN project (”The challenges of modernity for reindeer management – integra-

tion and sustainable development in Europe's Subarctic and Boreal regions” (2001–2004 EU FP5

QLK5-CT-2000-00745)) as a case for examining knowledge integration in transdisciplinary pro-

jects. Here we want to emphasize that when we refer to the integration of disciplines in relation to

the RENMAN project, we are dealing with disciplinary approaches that maintain the disciplines’

identities, methodological and conceptual advancements and perspectives while producing primary

knowledge. Thus, we are dealing with secondary integration of knowledges, not transdisciplinary

knowledge integration in the strict sense of emphasizing interpenetrative methodologies that trans-

form disciplines towards the hypothetical ideal of a single science. However, the disciplinary study

settings and results were complemented by each other. Furthermore, as the RENMAN project

placed a strong emphasis on integrating science with reindeer herders’ knowledge, we can refer to

transdisciplinarity.

We start by outlining our material and methods in Section 2, and in Section 3 we proceed to exam-

ine some literature on the co-production of knowledge regarding the identified challenges for inte-

gration, and introduce the potential roles which scientists can assume in order to overcome these

challenges. Section 4 provides some background on reindeer herding and its management in Finland

as well as introducing the RENMAN project. In Section 5, we examine negative and positive issues

regarding how scientists used various roles during the RENMAN project to manage the challenges

for knowledge integration during co-production processes. In Section 6, we reflect on what kind of

sensitivity the different roles of scientists should have in the co-production of knowledge and in

which phase of the project in order to gain a better possibility of coping with the challenges for in-

tegration.

6

2. Material and methods

The RENMAN project was selected as a case study because it is well-documented (Forbes et al.,

2006), one of the authors worked as a researcher in the project consortium, and because enough

time has passed since the project in order that it is possible to discuss such issues as its relevance for

environmental management in practice. Follow-up of the project is based on extensive following of

discussion related to reindeer herding over the past decade, and on some discussions with reindeer

herders during other projects in which reference was made to the RENMAN project. The project

has been widely documented and thus many of the empirical findings of this paper regarding the

integration of stakeholders (especially reindeer herders) were made by Hukkinen et al. (2006) and

are attributed to that paper in our analysis part. The theoretical argument of Hukkinen et al. (2006)

is mainly connected to developing cognitive potential by creating emergent institutions among a

variety of stakeholders. The added value of this paper is that we discuss empirical insights in terms

of the literature on the co-production of knowledge to draw conclusions on how the RENMAN pro-

ject succeeded and failed in integrating knowledge, what roles were played by the scientists in dif-

ferent phases of the project, and how these successes and failures can be explained by the notion of

sensitivity. Furthermore, the direct experiences of one of the authors from the project were critically

combined with the other papers in RENMAN project book. By “critical” we mean analysing also

the shortcomings of the RENMAN project, which were apparent during the project but remain

mostly implicit in the collection of papers (Forbes et al., 2006). Furthermore, the project book’s

epilogue, written by a reindeer herder, provides critical views on how the project was conducted

(Magga, 2006).

We analyzed our materials (project publications, experiences about the project, our experience and

discussions with the reindeer herders during other projects, public discussion on reindeer manage-

ment) using the principles of content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005), trying to answer the fol-

lowing questions: What challenges does the co-production of knowledge face in a transdisciplinary

7

setting regarding knowledge integration, and what roles did the scientists play to overcome the chal-

lenges in order to contribute to solving a real-world problem? Our analysis was performed by con-

tinuous interaction between empirical findings and insights from the literature on the co-production

of knowledge (Davies, 1999).

We started our analysis by identifying the points in time during and after the project when the dif-

ferent actors and knowledges came together. We continued by paying attention to successes and

failures regarding integration. Failure means that shared understanding of the problem or its solu-

tion did not emerge or even that a common language was not found. Successes encompass the crea-

tion of a mutually understandable language to communicate about the real-world problem, or shared

understanding. We also paid attention to in which phase of the project these successes and failures

occurred. As a result of analysing the materials we identified the following challenges for integra-

tion in the RENMAN project as being relevant also to other transdisciplinary projects: 1) the need

for integration during the design of study questions and settings (prior to knowledge production), 2)

the need to manage competitive deliberative settings (throughout the co-production of knowledge

with practitioners and stakeholders, and after primary disciplinary knowledge production), 3) the

potential mismatch between providing “optimal” policy recommendations and outputs integrating

facts and values (when thinking what kinds of outputs are created being relevant especially when

the results are communicated to knowledge users), and 4) the need to harness the benefits of the

process in order to contribute to managing the problem in the future (done during the interaction

with knowledge users with definite effects after the project). We then classified our materials ac-

cording to these four challenges and connected them to findings from the literature on the co-

production of knowledge in order to gain further insights, explanations and ideas on how to over-

come the challenges.

8

Next, we asked what were the roles taken (or not taken) by the scientists in order to overcome the

four challenges. As a starting point, we used the classification of roles scientists can take in a co-

production process (reflective scientist, intermediary and facilitator) by Pohl et al. (2010) and dis-

covered that most of the actions taken by the scientists during the co-production processes in the

RENMAN project could be attributed to these roles. However, we also found that there is a need for

defining an additional role, namely that of capacity builder, contributing to integrative efforts after

the project.

Finally, we searched for a common category which could explain and connect the findings on how

transdisciplinary scientists can contribute to overcoming the four challenges for the integration of

knowledges in a co-production process. We discovered that the metaphor of sensitivity works as a

major category for explaining whether the challenges are overcome. Examining sensitivity against

the different roles in different phases of the project enabled us to analytically illustrate what kind of

sensitivity is needed when performing different roles in different phases of the project to integrate

knowledges.

3. Challenges for co-production of knowledge and roles available for scientists to resolve the

challenges

3.1 Four challenges for knowledge integration in co-production

3.1.1 Need for integration during the design of study questions and settings

A key characteristic of transdisciplinary approaches is that they involve various stakeholders as

valid co-producers of scientific knowledge (e.g., Bruce et al., 2004; Höchtl et al., 2006). In transdis-

ciplinary research, the participating stakeholders should play an important role in structuring and

identifying the research problems (Klein, 2004; Höchtl et al., 2006). This is important because the

uptake of results into policy is more likely if those who utilize the knowledge have had a role in

defining or accepting the questions the research projects seek to answer (Lövbrand, 2011). In addi-

9

tion, sensitivity towards stakeholders’ views is justified by the fact that the integration of spheres of

practice and knowledge outside science provides access to real-world reasoning, interactions and

the complex real-world settings and contexts (Horlick-Jones and Sime, 2004). Furthermore, also

different disciplines, such as social and natural sciences, need to be integrated from the beginning of

the project with intentional iterative interaction, in order to design evolving methodology flexible

towards interdisciplinary discussions as well as towards input from stakeholders (Wickson et al.,

2006).

3.1.2 Need to manage competitive deliberative settings

Diverse knowledges are often integrated by arranging discussions with participation from multiple

stakeholders and researchers. These different knowledges should not only inform others but the

different parties should deliberate together in order to produce new kinds of knowledge and mutual

learning. However, Arias-Maldonado (2007) states that deliberation is easily an exclusionary prac-

tice in its emphasis on, and requirement of, communication: deliberation is to argue and defend ar-

guments through speech. Thus, deliberation often implies competition between different perspec-

tives (Young, 1996). In that competition, arguments often need to be defended with facts, giving

advantage to technical and scientific experts at the expense of participants who possess experience-

based knowledge. Thus, creating a fair discussion setting requires sensitivity towards possible

power plays and support for marginal stakeholders in order for balanced and fair integration to be

achieved.

3.1.3 Potential mismatch between “optimal” policy recommendations and outputs integrating facts

and values

Regarding complex environmental problems, the relationship between scientists, policymakers and

practitioners is often characterized by an increasing difficulty of distinguishing between facts and

values, and knowledge and interests. Furthermore, the facts involved are uncertain and there are

diverse values (Vogel et al., 2007; van der Sluijs et al., 2008; Lövbrand, 2011). If uncertainty and

10

value choices are masked behind the notions of certainty and objectivity, this can lead to a biased

setting halting the learning process by leading to unnecessary controversies (Jasanoff, 2003). Thus,

according to this view, researchers should communicate multiple viewpoints transparently rather

than hiding behind the veil of objectivity by providing optimal and ”objective” management rec-

ommendations (see Wardekker et al., 2008). However, the image of science being certain and ob-

jective often prevails amongst policymakers and positivistic scientists (Pielke, 2007; van den Hove,

2007), and policymakers, management officials and the public often seek certainty and determinis-

tic results from scientists (Bradshaw and Borchers, 2000). This may result in the fact that scientists

do not produce information considered relevant and useful by decision-makers and may simply

produce too much of the wrong kind of information, thereby reducing the possibility for integration.

3.1.4 Need to harness the benefits of the process in order to contribute to managing the problem in

the future

The knowledge production processes facilitating exchange between diverse viewpoints may be

more important for contributing to solving real world problem than the outputs produced (Farrell et

al., 2001; Clark et al., 2006; Glass et al., 2013). For example, a process may provide an example of

how co-production can be arranged even after the project. Deliberative processes allow a great di-

versity of views to emerge during the process, and the participants are not forced to build a consen-

sus (van de Kerkhof, 2006; Stirling, 2008). This is important as a consensus tends to exclude some

views and is often unable to embrace uncertainty, complexity and unpredictability (see Luks and

Siebenhüner, 2007). Thus, instead of giving optimal advice to politicians, transdisciplinary projects

may deliver parallel management options and in that way keep the issue open until the end of the

project and be sensitive towards the diversity of views not only during the process but also in the

outputs produced (see Pielke, 2007; Stirling, 2008, 2010).

11

3.2 Roles available for scientists to overcome the challenges Pohl et al. (2010) have examined how scientists and non-scientists meet each other in a shared

space to co-produce knowledge in order to overcome challenges regarding power, integration and

sustainability. In this paper, we focus on the challenges for integration. The overall goal of integra-

tion is to advance sustainability. According to Pohl et al. (2010), a scientist can take one of three

roles to meet the challenge of integration during a co-production process: reflective scientist, inter-

mediary or facilitator. In addition, based on our case study fourth role can be identified: capacity

builder (Table 1).

Table 1. Roles that a scientist can take to address challenges associated with co-production of

knowledge (Role of capacity builder added to Pohl et al., 2010, 277).

Role Expectations Norms

Reflective

scientist

Capable of providing expertise based on

scientific knowledge validated according to

the norms of the natural or social sciences

Validate knowledge according to

quantitative and qualitative proce-

dures

Intermediary Able to make different thought styles visible

and to link them around common interests

Provide leadership in view of repre-

senting common interests

Facilitator Capable of enhancing communicative proc-

esses between thought collectives, based on

respect, openness and deliberation

Promote joint reflection oriented

towards a common understanding of

situations and collective action, as

part of a learning process

Capacity

builder

Capable of increasing know-how to enable

the participants to implement the co-

production processes independently.

Translate the practices and ration-

ales behind the co-production para-

digm and should focus on explicit

training of the sensitivities needed

in knowledge co-production.

12

4. Background

4.1 Reindeer management in Finland

The management dilemmas related to reindeer herding are typical of complex environmental prob-

lems where various actors are involved, have diverging aspirations and values, and the science be-

hind management decisions is uncertain. Reindeer herding is a traditional small-scale livelihood

practiced in northern Finland. Approximately two-thirds of the reindeer herders are Finns, but in the

Sámi region the importance of herding is considered to be higher. Even though the profitability of

herding is characterized by low productivity, its value as an emblematic livelihood of northern

Finland in tourism marketing is difficult to measure. On the other hand, reindeer herding is often in

conflict with industrial forestry, which decreases winter pastures which are especially important

(Sarkki and Heikkinen, 2010). However, there are also contradictions between reindeer herding and

nature conservation because conserving predators, especially wolves, causes problems for reindeer

herding (Heikkinen et al., 2011) and the reindeer are also claimed to be a threat to the fragile nature

in northern protected areas (Heikkinen et al., 2010, 2012; Sarkki et al., 2013).

The well-being of the reindeer depends on their access to a varying range of alternative pastures.

Summer pastures are fast-renewing, and the primary economic production is based on the summer

growth of the reindeer population. On the other hand, winter pastures, ground lichens and tree li-

chens renew slowly (Helle and Saastamoinen, 1979; Forbes et al., 2006). In pasture research, ecol-

ogically and economically sustainable reindeer herding is often considered to depend on grazing

pressure (reindeer/km2) especially on the winter pastures that are considered to be the ecologically

limiting factor for reindeer husbandry (Helle and Kojola, 2006; Mattila, 2006). In the 1980s and

1990s, experts began explaining the expanding degradation of ground lichen solely as a result of

overgrazing and concluded that the number of reindeer had reached an ecologically unsustainable

level (Kumpula, 2001). At the same time, the expanding winter feeding was interpreted as yet an-

other sign of both the ecological and economic untenability of herding. Pasture research has policy

13

implications as it is used in determining the maximum number of reindeer allowed within reindeer

herding cooperatives by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

This bioeconomic management axiom focusing on ground lichen and supplementary feeding domi-

nated the reindeer debates in the turn of the millennium (Heikkinen et al., 2007). However, herders

have pointed out, for example, during the RENMAN project that the issue of ecological sustainabil-

ity of herding is much more complex. For example, bioeconomic pasture research ignores the fact

that competing land uses, such as forestry, decrease the availability of appropriate pastures and push

herding into ever smaller and less exploitable areas thus increasing grazing pressure on the remain-

ing pastures. According to this view, “the tragedy of the commons” in regard to reindeer pastures

does not result from simple competition between herders. Rather, it results from the appropriation

of the commons by new, often exclusionary, land uses. This tragedy grows more serious when the

state favors land uses that decrease available reindeer pastures but then reduce the pasture changes

to simple animal–pasture relationships (Hukkinen et al., 2003; Kumpula, 2003; Jaakkola et al.,

2006; Kyllönen et al., 2006).

4.2 The RENMAN project

The overall goal of the RENMAN project was to "integrate the indigenous people in an integrative

study between politics and science, with the specific objectives of participatory assessment and sys-

tems analysis of different reindeer management regimes, the development of integrative scenarios

and management plans for future sustainability, and enhancing the well-being and quality of life of

local populations" (Hukkinen et al., 2006, 49). According to Müller-Wille et al. (2006, 366), the

RENMAN project "was designed to overcome the separation of methodologies and approaches in

research on reindeer herding and create interdisciplinary context linking natural and social scien-

tists – and the scientists with practitioners, reindeer herders". This is important as natural scientific

studies have traditionally neglected the human dimension and focused on such issues as overgraz-

14

ing, the suggested natural status of pastures and reindeer, losses to predators and meat production.

Furthermore, until recently, little emphasis has been placed on the knowledge of the herders

(Müller-Wille et al., 2006).

The project also made an effort to map some of the challenges in reindeer herding presented by

modernity. These problems include, for example, border fences between the nations (Finland, Rus-

sia, Sweden and Norway), the introduction of snowmobiles in the 1970s, overgrazing which was

particularly apparent in the 1980s, climate change, the price of reindeer meat, and the development

of other land-use forms (Forbes, 2006). The RENMAN project aimed to alleviate the resulting prob-

lems by developing scenarios for the future of reindeer herding. The project was designed to con-

tribute to the problem-solving capacity of the different actors related to reindeer management in

northernmost Europe, and it also aimed to create new models of conducting policy-relevant science.

The RENMAN project included disciplines from the social (sociology, economics, cultural anthro-

pology, geography) as well as from the natural (soil science, vegetation science, microbiology, hy-

giene, meteorology) sciences. The disciplines were organized into 12 Work Packages (WP). The

interdisciplinary and participatory setting of the project was to ensure that the problems related to

reindeer herding were not studied in separation from their socioecological contexts.

Especially WP 1 aimed to integrate stakeholders into the knowledge production. Firstly, they made

field visits and conducted interviews with a total of 45 people including reindeer herders and gov-

ernment officials. Secondly, a set of three workshops was arranged. The first workshop was related

to problem definition, the second to proposed solutions and the third to preferred scenarios and

management recommendations. These workshops included 32 researchers, herders and government

officials. Thirdly, WP 1 arranged a final seminar with 80 participants, before which the results of

WP 1 were elaborated with additional results from the other WPs (Hukkinen et al., 2006).

15

5. The four challenges for knowledge integration in the RENMAN project

5.1 Need for integration during design of study questions and settings

Experiences from the RENMAN project indicate a need for interaction between different knowl-

edges in problem definition and study design. Firstly, at the end of the project, some natural scien-

tists took the role of reflective scientist to enhance the reindeer herders’ understanding of the eco-

logical effects of overgrazing and trampling. Confusion was caused among the reindeer herders, for

example, during the final symposium due to a researcher presenting results showing that reindeer

produce even more pressure on land per centimeter than big-wheeled forestry machines. Even

though it was well-intentioned, the comparison of forestry machines with reindeer was a mistake

manifesting the biased disciplinary setting where the effects of forestry machines were reduced to

the pressure the machines produced on the land while neglecting the effects of logging, plowing the

ground and the poor ecological condition of young tree ”plantations”. This argument is connected

with the past trend in pasture research of reducing pasture condition to a simple bioeconomic mod-

eling of reindeer-lichen relations. Thus, the herders considered this offending and absurd. They

compared the argument to their own lay expertise regarding the unattractive effects created by for-

estry machines (cutting trees and thus demolishing tree lichens, letting branches cover and thereby

reduce the availability of ground lichens, and tilling which afterwards destroys the remaining li-

chens making the site unusable for reindeer for decades) and the insignificant trails produced by

reindeer during decades of trampling. This comparison also evoked feelings related to conflicts be-

tween forestry and reindeer herding and, thus, the researcher seemed to espouse the argument that

forestry is an ecologically better land-use form than reindeer herding and, again, the stigma of eco-

logical deterioration by grazing was placed on the herders. Thus, here the reflective scientists failed

to produce increased understanding on the ecological effects of grazing due to lack of sensitivity

towards real-world reasoning.

16

Secondly, another interesting debate during the RENMAN project concerned water sampling sites.

Research was conducted to measure the quality of water in the reindeer herding cooperative of

Näkkälä and the neighboring area in Norway. The sample sites were chosen to represent both winter

and summer pasture use. However, discussion arose surrounding the question of whether the initi-

ated sampling sites were too close to the herders’ working fences used, for example, in earmarking

reindeer calves. This means that there is periodically an extensive amount of reindeer and, obvi-

ously, at certain times, the spot load can be relatively high. Furthermore, pasture uses diverge be-

tween Finland and Norway in respect to the grazing pressure on winter and summer pastures. This

obviously led to a debate on how comparable the results are while also evoking thoughts regarding

whether the intention of the study was to create evidence that reindeer are a threat to water quality.

The atmosphere was calmed down because the results did not indicate any significant harm to water

quality by reindeer grazing (cf. Kemper et al., 2006, 306–310).

These two examples verify the idea that sensitivity towards knowledge from outside science pro-

vides access to real-world reasoning and interactions as well as to the complex real-world settings

and contexts (Horlick-Jones and Sime, 2004) and can correct biases in disciplinary research set-

tings. However, the acknowledgment of non-scientific knowledge is not self-evident as manifested

by a reindeer herder’s words in the epilogue of the project publication: “during the fieldwork [of the

natural scientists] there would have been good opportunities to ask the reindeer herders their opin-

ion regarding the research being conducted on, for example, the snow conditions and the state of

the winter pastures”. The resulting comparisons between natural scientific knowledge and herders’

knowledge would have been “important for me as a reindeer herder, because we would then be

able to discuss and better understand each other regarding lichen rangelands” (Magga, 2006, 382).

Thus, the inclusion of stakeholder knowledge directly or via facilitator scientists is important for

integration and for the results to reflect the inherently social nature of the conflicts between humans

over natural resources (White et al., 2009).

17

This kind of biases and the herder’s suspicion of purposefulness in the study settings trace back to

the overgrazing debates of the 1990s and, particularly, the heavy criticism presented by herders to-

wards pasture surveys which combined remote sensing and random field sampling while neglecting

other land-use impacts on pastures. As a counter-narrative, herders have related that, for example, in

Muonio, the field samples were collected from their round-up fence systems and, in Inari, from the

roadsides. For herders, pasture research is a sensitive issue because the research is used by the ad-

ministration in defining the allowed number of reindeer within a reindeer herding cooperative. Par-

ticularly, studies which directly estimate the carrying capacities of pastures are prone to criticism

from herders.

These biases resulting from study settings are connected to power relations, marginalization and

material effects of the knowledge production practices. This not only highlights the fact that disci-

plinary biases can be significant from the viewpoint of how knowledge is produced (Gibbons et al.,

1994) but it also points to the fact that there is a need for sensitivity towards the ways knowledge

affects real-world practices and how knowledge may reinforce existing power relations, for exam-

ple, between different land-use forms.

Due to these debates, considerable efforts have been made to improve pasture research methodolo-

gies (see Kumpula et al., 1997; Kumpula et al., 2006). Regarding the aforementioned issues con-

cerning biased study settings in the RENMAN project, knowledge integration was preceded by the

different fields of science producing their results in terms of their own specific traditions, but fi-

nally, the results were placed in the broader context of other land uses, reindeer herding practices

and environmental histories. In the final project publication, the results and their interpretation were

contextualized, for example, in the introduction and summary chapters of the pertinent articles (cf.

Kemper et al., 2006, 306–310; Kitti et al., 2006, 141–142; Kumpula, 2006, 167, 182–183; Peth and

18

Horn, 2006, 217, 241). These changes can be seen as being due to the facilitator role of the social

scientists. Because of the differences in world views, expertise and language, herders could seldom

directly communicate with the natural scientists, but in many cases, this communication was facili-

tated by the social scientists involved in the project. Thus, the role of reflective natural scientist of-

ten needs to be complemented by facilitators.

The outcomes of the project can be observed from the research topics and questions, which have

been expanded to comprise a considerable number of questions pointed out by the herders during

the RENMAN project. For example, the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (FGFRI)

has studied the impacts of industrial forestry on reindeer pastures and productivity of ground lichens

(Kumpula, 2003). Also, the importance and poor availability of tree lichens today have been point-

ed out in many studies (e.g., Jaakkola et al., 2006). Furthermore, in publishing new pasture research

results, it has become commonplace to point out that the pasture conditions are affected by multiple

other land-use forms in addition to the reindeer–pasture relationship (Kumpula et al., 2006). These

developments have decreased the previous stigma: herders are no longer accused of being solely

responsible for overgrazing and impact of other land uses is taken into account.

5.2 Need to manage competitive deliberative settings

Three kinds of competitive deliberation settings can be identified as having taken place during the

RENMAN project: competition between disciplines, competition between scientific and experience-

based knowledge and internal competition between herders.

In order to integrate the social and natural sciences, the RENMAN project utilized systems analysis.

The results were used to promote the development of sustainable reindeer husbandry strategies. In

order to apply the particular results from the various disciplines, 32 indicators were developed re-

garding land-use structure, economic and social welfare and ecological integrity. However, due to

19

difficulties in adjusting the varying data sources to the indicator-based models and scenarios based

on the indicators, additional expert interviews were conducted with reindeer herders, researchers

and decision-makers to assess the specific impacts of the different scenarios on a number of indica-

tors. The selected indicators deriving from different disciplines did not fit directly into the same

scientific calculus, but parallel systems analyses informed the interpretations and conclusions made

using the other systems. This enabled holistic and multidimensional scenario development, which

included the estimation of, for example, internal relations and potential developments in very dif-

ferent fields of life, such as competing land uses, ecological integrity and economic and social wel-

fare (Burkhard and Müller 2006, 343–344, 348, 353–359).

In principle, the indicators may help to facilitate the integration of disciplines as well as help in al-

leviating possible competition between arguments originating from different disciplines. However,

the primary challenge regarding indicators in RENMAN came from the differences between the

quantifying research traditions of the natural sciences and the qualitative knowledge of both the

reindeer herders and sociocultural sciences. For example, regarding social welfare, the only quanti-

fiable indicator was population demographics. This led to a rather simplified view of the issues re-

garding social sustainability. Even though interviews assessing the impact of the scenarios on dif-

ferent indicators of social welfare were conducted, these results were simplified into a spidergram

(see Burkhard and Müller, 2006, 353–355).

It has been noted that there are different approaches to managing uncertainty: for example, it can be

“hidden” behind exact numbers by quantification or deliberated among the participants in order to

form a more holistic picture about the phenomena under study (Van der Sluijs, 2005; Wardekker et

al., 2008). With respect to RENMAN, the requirement for quantification produced an ”aura of for-

mality and objectivity, and a precision that is often not justified” (cf. Wilson, 2009, 82). It seems

that the potential of the participatory interviews was partly lost due to the decision to produce exact

20

numbers, indicating a lack of sensitivity towards the qualitative uncertainties. Furthermore, delib-

eration on these uncertainties might have led to a more nuanced account of the social sustainability

of reindeer herding.

A crucial effort throughout the project was the integration of stakeholder knowledge into the re-

search processes. In WP 1, the social scientists played the roles of facilitator and intermediary while

co-producing the scenarios and policy recommendations. WP 1 integrated the herders’ knowledges

into the scientific findings in three-step ”knowledge networking”. The first step (“pioneer network-

ing” involving 45 people) was to visit, discuss and interview the reindeer herders and government

officials. The purpose of this was to ensure the reindeer herders’ participation in the early process

and also to influence the problem definitions of the sub-project aiming to integrate the reindeer

herders’ knowledge into the scientific findings. The second part was ”translational networking”,

which consisted of three multi-stakeholder workshops involving 32 people. The purpose of the

workshops was to integrate the inputs from the ”pioneer networking” phase to create scenarios and

management recommendations. The final step was ”modular networking”, which involved alto-

gether 80 people, including a wider group of relevant stakeholders and an EU desk officer. The ob-

jective of the ”modular networking” phase was to discuss and present policy recommendations to a

wider group of relevant stakeholders (Hukkinen et al., 2006).

Regarding the facilitator role, the three forms of knowledge networking provided an important and

sensitive method for reducing potential expert dominance and competition between the different

parties associated with the deliberative processes (see Young, 1996; Arias-Maldonado, 2007). Fur-

thermore, the reindeer herders saw this knowledge integration in a positive light, as they felt that

they were actually heard unlike in previous ”hearings” arranged by environmental management

practitioners.

21

A special set of biases during the RENMAN project was related to different reindeer herding tradi-

tions and local adaptations to specific socioecological environments. There are considerable differ-

ences in reindeer herding practices among Sámi herding communities as well as between Finnish

herders. The same holds true for Sámi reindeer herding in Sweden and Norway as well as for rein-

deer herding traditions in Russia (Jernsletten and Beach, 2006). The natural environment varies, for

example, from the southern flat peat lands to the dense coniferous forests of the middle parts to the

open tundra in the north. Also, competing land uses, such as forestry and tourism, and the fragmen-

tation of pastures differ considerably, as do the possibilities and willingness for certain adaptive

actions, such as supplementary feeding. In regard to the RENMAN project, this meant that it was

difficult to even find a recommendation or to define a future scenario that would have satisfied, for

example, all Sámi reindeer herding communities in Finland. For example, some have the possibility

and will to engage in supplementary feeding of reindeer, which for others is a red flag. This means

that the RENMAN project scientists were also facilitators and intermediaries, as they built joint

understanding and facilitated the discussion of goals between the heterogeneous herding communi-

ties themselves (cf. Hukkinen, 2008, 119–128). Thus, during a knowledge production process, sen-

sitivity towards internal differences and potential competition within communities and groups is

needed.

5.3 Potential mismatch between ”optimal” policy recommendations and outputs integrating

facts and values

WP 1 of the RENMAN project developed various parallel scenarios and policy recommendations

instead of only a single scenario or an ”optimal” policy recommendation (Hukkinen et al., 2006).

WP 1 did not try to provide one simple answer to the problems at hand but accepted divergence by

providing many parallel management options and scenarios from which people could learn. This

helped in creating an atmosphere that allowed sensitivity towards the herders’ views during the

22

whole process and enabled the possibility of embracing uncertainty, complexity and diversity

throughout the project (see Luks and Siebenhüner, 2007).

However, at the project’s final symposium the project experts (including scientists and reindeer

herders) were requested to distinguish between, on the one hand, the recommendations preferred by

the herders and researchers and, on the other hand, the optimal recommendations. This distinction

would presumably have had an impact on public policy making (Hukkinen et al., 2006, 49). Thus,

the rationale for the fact that parallel recommendations were outlined in the results was not compre-

hended. In addition, a herder wrote in the epilogue of the project publication that: “a civil servant of

the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has already publicly criticized the RENMAN project be-

cause ‘primitive and illiterate herders’ have been admitted access to an area of science to which

they do not belong and that ’they only promote their own interests without any regard for the carry-

ing capacity of the land’. I sincerely hope that this is not the official view of the Ministry” (Magga,

2006, 382). This quote highlights the difficulty for some parties to accept the integration of facts

and values or the integration of experience-based knowledge into science. These mismatches may

be explained by the fact that WP 1 was successful in integrating the knowledge holders (e.g., rein-

deer herders) into co-production by facilitating iterative interaction but may at the same time have

neglected policymakers as knowledge users except at the end of the project when the results were

presented to them.

Many people working in environmental administration have a background in the natural sciences,

and the reductionist view of science can produce suspicion towards the integration of facts and val-

ues under the same management recommendations. There seems to be a paradox associated with

this mismatch: social scientists seek neutrality and objectivity by emphasizing the co-production of

knowledge and the integration of facts and values into parallel management recommendations, but

this often decreases objectivity in the eyes of knowledge users and natural scientists. This dilemma

23

challenges the currently widely-held view that, instead of providing a single, definitive and seem-

ingly ”objective” recommendation, multiple views and parallel options should be communicated

(see Sarewitz, 2004; van de Kerkhof, 2006; Pielke, 2007; Stirling, 2008, 2010). What is the point of

integrating facts and values and providing parallel management options if policymakers and man-

agement practitioners will not use outputs constructed in such a manner?

5.4 Need to harness the benefits of the process in order to contribute to managing the problem

in the future

Co-production and knowledge integration can continue after a transdisciplinary project. The offi-

cials of the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (FGFRI) participated in the RENMAN

process and learned about the workshop methods which they then further applied into their own

work. In 2004, the FGFRI organized a series of participatory workshops, which aimed to develop

reindeer management and planning at the local level (Hukkinen et al., 2006, 67). This was a positive

surprise, especially in the midst of a lack of respect towards participatory methods by some of the

natural scientists examining reindeer-related issues. An example set by RENMAN’s participatory

processes resulted in increased know-how on how to arrange participatory knowledge production

processes. Learning to arrange participatory processes is, however, not a simple task as shown by

the case of the FGFRI’s future workshops with an unbalanced representation of stakeholders, as

they were participated by only few reindeer herders. This indicates the importance of sensitivity

towards recognizing heterogeneous actors even within local communities. Lack of such sensitivity

may produce a bias, as reindeer herders are not a homogeneous group but differences and even con-

flicts exist, for example, between the Sámi and Finnish herders. If successful, the new know-how

created by a transdisciplinary project can further contribute to democratizing expertise and to

knowledge production practices having real-world effects. To promote know-how, scientists could

use role of ”capacity builder”, which is further discussed in Section 6. This also emphasizes the fact

that the knowledge co-production processes themselves may be more important for the outcomes

24

than their outputs (Farrell et al., 2001; Clark et al., 2006; Glass et al., 2013) and, furthermore, that

the processes may also have unintended positive consequences.

6. Discussions and conclusions

We would like to conclude by stating that sensitivity seems to be an applicable metaphor for com-

prehending the complexities of knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary projects. Success and

failure in knowledge integration can often be explained by sensitivity or lack thereof. Based on our

findings we can provide a general definition for sensitivity in transdisciplinary projects: “Sensitivity

encompasses attention to the needs and problem definitions of knowledge holders and knowledge

users, respect towards different world views, divergent perspectives and forms of knowledge (e.g.,

practitioners’ knowledges; discipline-based knowledges) as well as the understanding of biases,

power relations, and possible marginalizations embedded in and resulting from knowledge produc-

tion”.

Figure 1 summarizes the key findings of this paper regarding engaged actors, key challenges for

integration in knowledge co-production processes, the possible roles scientists can take to resolve

these challenges and the kinds of sensitivities that must be acknowledged while performing the dif-

ferent roles.

25

Figure 1. Actors, challenges, roles and sensitivities in transdisciplinary projects addressing real

world problems.

What kinds of sensitivities are needed in the different phases of transdisciplinary projects and by the

different roles performed by scientists (Stauffacher et al., 2008)? Next, we discuss this by examin-

ing the potential roles for scientists in knowledge co-production: reflective scientist, intermediary,

facilitator (Pohl et al., 2010) and capacity builder.

For a reflective scientist, it is essential to grasp the real-world reasoning as early as when designing

the study and formulating the questions in order to provide acceptable knowledge which is able to

lead to learning and change instead of producing a biased study setting leading to anxiety. Thus, it

is often a fallacy to think that a reflective scientist can produce applicable knowledge while relying

solely on valid scientific methods. While natural scientists may have valid knowledge production

methods in which stakeholder knowledge is ignored, social scientists often engage with stake-

holders by default. It seems that in transdisciplinary projects the role of reflective natural scientist

must be complemented with social science which is sensitive towards stakeholder knowledge. Al-

26

ternatively, natural scientists ought to incorporate interactions with stakeholders as early as when

defining the study questions. Flexibility is needed in order to take the issues necessitated by the new

knowledge into account. This may cause changes even in the level of designed methodology (Wick-

son et al., 2006). Our results highlight the fact that intensive interaction between reflective natural

scientists and facilitating social scientists is especially important during two phases of a transdisci-

plinary project: firstly, in designing the study setting and questions in order to design unbiased and

relevant knowledge production, and secondly, after the knowledge produced by the individual dis-

ciplines should be combined with other disciplines’ knowledge in order to provide a holistic ac-

count of the questions addressed. In the latter case, the reflective scientist also needs the assistance

of a facilitator or translator in order to make the message understandable and relevant for the target

audience. The necessity of translation became especially clear during the RENMAN project, as the

knowledge obtained from stakeholders and social scientists often had little effect on the preferences

for the forms of knowledge or natural scientific methods. Instead, the view mostly prevailed that

”true” science is based on quantification, modeling, reductionist study settings and ”objectivity”

resulting from its distinction from other stakeholders.

The RENMAN project aimed to facilitate the communication process between disciplines with the

creation of a systems-based indicator set to which all included disciplines could have provided

knowledge. The ability of the social sciences to contribute to the indicator set was hindered by the

fact that the results had to be reduced to a few words or even numbers, thus hiding the uncertainties

behind simplistic presentations. Thus, successful facilitation requires sensitivity towards the tradi-

tions of the different disciplines as well as towards ways of treating uncertainties (e.g., quantifying

or deliberating the uncertainty) (see Van der Sluijs, 2005; Wardekker et al., 2008). This again em-

phasizes the need for flexibility of the general frameworks employed in transdisciplinary projects. It

could also be beneficial to co-design the frameworks through which the disciplines are integrated

already in an early stage.

27

Regarding the integration of stakeholder knowledge in the RENMAN project, a combination of

facilitator and intermediary roles was used via a set of interviews and workshops. Sensitivity to-

wards different perspectives was achieved via a multi-phase knowledge production process. An

iterative process helps to design co-production which is sensitive towards different positions (see

Lemos and Morehouse, 2005). However, in the final seminar the project suffered a setback, as some

officials who were not part of the previous stages of knowledge production did not value the results

presented in a manner integrating facts and values as well as knowledge from various actors (e.g.,

scientists and reindeer herders). Thus, it is necessary for facilitators and intermediaries to be sensi-

tive towards not only knowledge holders but also knowledge users (e.g., policymakers and envi-

ronment management officials) in order to enhance the understanding of the complexity of the prob-

lem and the appreciation of the fact that science cannot offer simple solutions. The benefits of in-

volving the knowledge users in the knowledge production at an early stage have been strongly ad-

vocated in the literature on science-policy interfaces (e.g., Watson, 2005; Lövbrand, 2011). This

would also be important for transdisciplinary projects, as they aim to produce effects on policy and

stakeholders.

Furthermore, it may not be enough to recognize policymakers and management officials as knowl-

edge users, but also as owners of processes to produce policy relevant knowledge. Here two kinds

of processes can be identified: the policy formulation and implementation process to which given

policymakers and management officials have sense of ownership, and 2) the transdisciplinary

knowledge co-production process (contributing to the policy formulation) to which policymakers’

ownership has to be built. Due to lack of ownership to the transdisciplinary knowledge production

the transdisciplinary project can be even considered as offending, as illustrated by the policymak-

ers’ statement about “primitive and illiterate herders” invading area where they do not belong.

Here Stirling’s (2008) distinction about ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ processes is interesting.

28

Previously “closed down” policy formulation process is often trying to be “opened up” via transdis-

ciplinary process. However, the transdisciplinary process may not be acknowledging “legitimately

divergent interpretation embodied in the preceding deliberations and negotiations” (Stirling, 2008,

279) from the point of view of policymakers. In fact, policymakers interpretations were not deliber-

ated enough during the RENMAN project. Thus, conversely from the usual pleas to “open up”

knowledge production to societal groups, transdisciplinary projects may face opposite challenge:

they often focus on engaging stakeholders by default, but may be “closed down” from the point of

view of owners of the policy process to which the transdisciplinary projects aim to feed input. Sen-

sitivity regarding policymakers and management officials is thus needed in two fronts: to engage

policy makers early to transdisciplinary project to develop ownership, and to take account policy-

makers’ strong sense of existing ownership to policy formulation processes. By those means poten-

tial of transdisciplinary project to produce knowledge that is actually used in policy processes

grows.

Of course, it is not always possible to include all the stakeholders throughout the project. In such

situations, active translation efforts on the rationale of the co-production paradigm (e.g., integration

of facts and values; parallel management recommendations) could be useful for increasing the po-

tential of the policymakers to accept the scientists’ plural advice and the invasion of transdiscipli-

nary project to the traditional domain of policymakers. This translation might include indicating that

science, too, includes value choices and that lay knowledge may be based not only on values but

also on experiences of how the phenomena under study operate in reality. This could lead to in-

creased sensitivity towards alternative knowledge systems and to the acknowledgment that scien-

tific knowledge is not superior to experience-based knowledge. At best, they may interact with each

other so that both maintain their own identity and characteristics while developing and cross-

fertilizing one another. Thus, facilitators also need to be translators between different perspectives.

Translation is important as diverse academic traditions and epistemological barriers have been iden-

29

tified as a key barrier for successful interaction between disciplines and stakeholders (Tress et al.,

2007). It seems that the role of the translator becomes especially crucial in the later phases of a

transdisciplinary project unless the various perspectives have had the possibility to inform each

other in an iterative process.

In WP 1 of the RENMAN project, the scientists played the role of an intermediary, for example,

regarding the heterogeneous reindeer herding communities with divergent interests. Intermediaries

may benefit from not forcing specific management recommendations and results but being sensitive

towards divergence even in the final outputs (Stirling, 2008, 2010). In this way, transdisciplinary

projects could widen the perspectives and scope of plausible options for the knowledge users while

leaving the value decisions to policymakers instead of politicizing science by making ”optimal rec-

ommendations”, which can lead to the loss of credibility of science (Pielke, 2007) and to the loss of

sensitivity towards divergent interests.

Our case showed that transdisciplinary projects can provide an example of co-production methods

which can be employed after the project. The corresponding role for scientists may be termed ”ca-

pacity builder”. A capacity builder would be capable of increasing know-how to enable the partici-

pants to implement the co-production processes independently. A capacity builder would promote

learning about the various sensitivities which co-production processes must take into account. The

role of capacity builder necessitates translating the practices and rationales behind the co-production

paradigm and should focus on explicit training of the sensitivities needed in knowledge co-

production in order to avoid shortcomings (e.g., regarding the scope of participants) in future co-

production efforts.

Finally, we argue that the notion of sensitivity exceeds the role of being an explanatory metaphor:

sensitivity must be the attitude of all participants of transdisciplinary projects. This attitude should

30

encompass identities, world views, study questions, different forms of knowledge production by the

participants in transdisciplinary projects as well as real-world conflicts, marginalizing practices and

power relations. However, sensitivity as an attitude is not sufficient, but ultimately flexibility to act

on the knowledge gained by sensitivity is necessary in order to design dynamic and evolving proc-

esses which are able to contribute to the resolution of complex real-world problems.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the people, both researchers and stakeholders, who have contributed to

the RENMAN project. Secondly, we thank the FiDiPro project Human-Environment Relations in

the North, funded by the Academy of Finland. Finally, we thank the reviewers for their very con-

structive comments on the previous versions of our manuscript, which was consequently improved.

We like also to thank Hannele Heikkilä-Tuomaala for work with our graphical abstract.

References Arias-Maldonado, M., 2007. An imaginary solution? The green defence of deliberative democracy.

Environmental Values 16, 233–252.

Bradshaw, G.A., Borchers, J.G., 2000. Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science–policy

gap. Conservation Ecology 4(1), 7.

Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., Williams, R., 2004. Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of

the Fifth Framework programme. Futures 36(4), 457–470.

Burkhard, B., Müller, F., 2006. Systems analysis of Finnish reindeer management. In: Forbes, B.C.,

Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F., Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.),

Reindeer management in Northernmost Europe. Ecological Studies 184. Springer, Verlag Berlin

Heidelberg, pp. 341–364.

Carley, M., Christie, I., 2000. Managing Sustainable Development. Earthscan publications, London.

31

Clark, W.C., Mitchell, R.B., Cash, D.W., 2006. Evaluating the Influence of Global Environmental

Assessments. In: Mitchell R.B., Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., Dickson, N.M. (Eds.), Global Envi-

ronmental Assessments: Information and influence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–28.

Davies, C.A., 1999. Reflexive ethnography. A guide to researching selves and others. London,

Routledge.

Farrell, A.E., VanDeveer, S., Jäger, J., 2001. Environmental assessments: Four under-appreciated

elements of design. Global Environmental Change 11(4), 311–333.

Forbes, B.C., 2006. The Challenges of Modernity for Reindeer Management in Northernmost

Europe. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F., Gunslay, N.,

Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in Northernmost Europe. Ecological Studies

184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 11–26.

Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F., Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y.

(Eds.), 2006. Reindeer management in Northernmost Europe. Ecological Studies 184. Springer,

Verlag Berlin Heidelber.

Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7), 739–755.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1994. The New

Production of Knowledge: The New Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary So-

cieties. Sage, Stockholm.

Glass, J.H., Scott, A.J., Price, M.F., 2013. The power of process: Co-producing a sustainability as-

sessment toolkit for upland estate management in Scotland. Land Use Policy 30(1), 254–265.

Heikkinen, H.I., Lakomäki, S., Baldridge, J., 2007. The dimensions of sustainability and the neo-

entrepreneurial adaptation strategies in reindeer herding in Finland. The Journal of Ecological

Anthropology 11(1), 25–42.

Heikkinen, H.I., Moilanen, O., Nuttall, M., Sarkki, S., 2011. Managing predators, managing rein-

deer: contested conceptions of predator policies in the southeast Reindeer herding area of

Finland. Polar Record 47(242), 218–230.

32

Heikkinen H.I., Sarkki, S., Jokinen, M., Fornander, D.E., 2010. Global Area Conservation Ideals

versus the Local Realities of Reindeer Herding in Northernmost Finland. International Journal

of Business and Globalization 4(2), 110–130.

Heikkinen, H. I., Sarkki, S., Nuttall, M., 2012. Users or producers of ecosystem services? A sce-

nario exercise for integrating conservation and reindeer herding in northeast Finland. Pastoral-

ism: Research, Policy and Practice 2, 11.

Helle, T., Kojola, I., 2006. Population trends of semi-domesticated reindeer in Fennoscandia –

Evaluation of explanations. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller,

F., Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in Northernmost Europe. Eco-

logical Studies 184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 319–339.

Helle T., Saastamoinen, O., 1979. The winter food resources of semi-domistecated reindeer in

northern Finland. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae 95(6), 1–27.

Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D.,

Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., Zemp, E., (Eds.) 2008. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research.

Springer, Wien.

Horlick-Jones, T., Sime, J., 2004. Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity.

Futures 36(4), 441–456.

Hsieh, H-F., Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative

Health Research 15(9), 1277–1288.

Hukkinen, J., Müller-Wille, L., Aikio, P., Heikkinen, H.I., Jääskö, O., Laakso, A., Magga, H.,

Nevalainen, S., Pokuri, O., Raitio, K., West, N., 2006. Development of Participatory Institutions

for Reindeer Management in Finland: A Diagnosis of Deliberation, Knowledge Integration and

Sustainability. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F., Gunslay,

N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in Northernmost Europe. Ecological Studies

184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 47–71.

Hukkinen, J., Müller-Wille, L., Heikkinen, H.I., (Eds.) 2003. Development of participatory institu-

tions for reindeer management in northern Finland: preliminary synthesis and report. Technol-

ogy, Society, Environment 6/2003. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.

33

Höchtl, F., Lehringer, S., Konold, W., 2006. Pure theory or useful tool? Experiences with transdis-

ciplinarity in the Piedmont Alps. Environmental Science & Policy 9(4), 322–329.

Jaakkola, L., Helle, T., Soppela, J., Kuitunen, M., Yrjönen, M., 2006. Effects of forest characteris-

tics on the abundance of alectorioid lichens in northern Finland. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research 36(11), 2955–2965.

Jasanoff, S. (Ed.), 2004. States of Knowledge. The Co-Production of Science and Social Order.

Routledge, London.

Jasanoff, S., 2003. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva

41(3), 223–244.

Jernsletten, J.-L., Beach, H., 2006. The Challenges and Dilemmas of Concession Reindeer Man-

agement in Sweden. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F.,

Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in Northernmost Europe. Ecologi-

cal Studies 184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 95–116.

Kemper, N., Höller, C., Aschfalk, A., 2006. Hygienic Status of Soils and Surface Waters in Rein-

deer Herding Areas in Northernmost Europe. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L.,

Hukkinen, J., Müller, F., Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in

Northernmost Europe. Ecological Studies 184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 297–

316.

Kinzig, A.P., 2001. Bridging disciplinary divides to address environmental and intellectual chal-

lenges. Ecosystems 4(8), 709–715.

Kitti, H., Gunslay, N., Forbes, B.C., 2006. Defining the Quality of Reindeer Pastures: The Perspec-

tives of Sámi Reindeer Herders. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J.,

Müller, F., Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in Northernmost Euro-

pe. Ecological Studies 184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 141–166.

Klein, J.T., 2004a. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4), 515–526.

Klein, J.T., 2004b. Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. E:CO Special

Double Issue 6(1-2), 2–10.

34

Klein, J. T., 1990. Interdisciplinarity—History, Theory and Practice. Wayne State University Press,

Detroit.

Kumpula, J., 2001. Productivity of the semi-domesticated reindeer (Rangifer T. tarandus L.) stock

and carrying capacity of pastures in Finland during 1960–1990’s. University of Oulu. Acta

Universitatis Ouluensis. A Scientiae Rerum Naturalium 375.

Kumpula, J., 2003. Metsänkäsittelyn vaikutukset porolaitumiin. Riista- ja kalatalouden

tutkimuslaitos. Kala- ja riistaraportteja no. 286.

Kumpula, J., Colpaert, A., Kumpula, T., Nieminen, M., 1997: Suomen poronhoitoalueen

talvilaidunvarat. Kala- ja riistaraportteja no. 93.

Kumpula, J., Colpaert, A., Tanskanen, A., Anttonen, M., Törmänen, H., Siitari, J., 2006.

Porolaidunten inventoinnin kehittäminen – Keski-Lapin paliskuntien laiduninventointi vuosina

2005–2006. RKTL, Riistan- ja kalantutkimus. Kaamanen. Kala- ja riistaraportteja 397.

Kumpula, T., 2006. Very High Resolution Remote Sensing Data in Reindeer Pasture Inventory in

Northern Fennoscandia. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F.,

Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in Northernmost Europe.

Ecological Studies 184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 95–116.

Kyllönen S., Colpaert, A., Heikkinen, H.I., Jokinen, M., Kumpula, J., Marttunen, M., Muje, K.,

Raitio, K., 2006. Conflict Management as a Means to the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources.

Silva Fennica 40(4), 687–728.

Lawrence, R.J., Després C., 2004. Futures of Transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4), 397–405.

Lemos, M.C., Morehouse B.J., 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate

assessments. Global Environmental Change 15(1), 57–68.

Luks, F., Siebenhüner, B., 2007. Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the

German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance. Ecological Economics

63(2-3), 418–426.

Lövbrand, E., 2011. Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the

making of useful knowledge. Science & Public Policy 38(3), 225–236.

35

Magga, J., 2006. Epilogue. Reindeer Herder Lost in the Jungle of Science. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter,

M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F., Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer

management in Northernmost Europe. Ecological Studies 184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidel-

berg, pp. 381–383.

Mattila E. 2006. Porojen talvilaitumien kunto Ylä-Lapin paliskunnissa vuonna 2004. Working Pa-

pers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute. Metlan työraportteja 28.

Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F., Bölter, M., Forbes, B.C., 2006. Synthesis: Environ-

mental and socio-political conditions for modern reindeer management in Europe's North. In:

Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J., Müller, F., Gunslay, N., Konstantinov,

Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in Northernmost Europe. Ecological Studies 184. Springer,

Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 365–380.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an

Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Oxford Dictionary. 2012. Sensitivity. At: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sensitivity

(accessed 21 August 2012).

Peth, S., Horn, R., 2006. Consequences of Grazing on Soil Physical and Mechanical Properties in

Forest and Tundra Environments. In: Forbes, B.C., Bölter, M., Müller-Wille, L., Hukkinen, J.,

Müller, F., Gunslay, N., Konstantinov, Y. (Eds.), Reindeer management in Northernmost Euro-

pe. Ecological Studies 184. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 217–244.

Pielke, R., 2007. The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G.S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C.I., Kiteme,

B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hirsch Hadorn, G., Wiesmann, U., 2010. Researchers’ roles in

knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bo-

livia and Nepal. Science & Public Policy 37(4), 267–281.

Pohl, C., 2011. What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures 43, 618–626.

Rein, D., Schön, M., 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controver-

sies. Basic Books, New York.

36

Sarewitz, D., 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science

& Policy 7(5), 385–403.

Sarkki, S., Heikkinen, H.I., 2010. Social Movements’ Pressure Strategies during Forest Disputes in

Finland. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 2(3), 281–296.

Sarkki, S., Heikkinen, H.I., Puhakka, R., 2013. Boundary organisations between conservation and

development: insights from Oulanka National Park, Finland. World Review of Entrepreneur-

ship, Management and Sustainable Development 9(1), 37–63.

Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., Krütli, P., Scholz, R.W., 2008. Analytic and Dynamic Approach to

Collaboration: A Transdisciplinary Case Study on Sustainable Landscape Development in a

Swiss Prealpine Region. Systemic Practice and Action Research (21), 409–422.

Stirling, A., 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029–1031.

Stirling, A., 2008. "Opening Up" and "Closing Down". Power, participation and pluralism in the

social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 33(2), 262–294.

Tress, G., Tress, B., Fry, G., 2007. Analysis of the barriers to integration in landscape research pro-

jects. Land Use Policy 24(2), 374–385.

Van de Kerkhof, M., 2006. Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the

relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Science 39(3), 279–299.

Van den Hove, S., 2007. A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39(7), 807–826. Van der Sluijs, J., 2005. Uncertainty as a monster in the science–policy interface: four coping

strategies. Water Science & Technology 52(6), 87–92.

Van der Sluijs, J.P., Petersen, A.C., Janssen, P.H.M., Risbey, J.S., Ravetz, J.R., 2008. Exploring the

quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions. Environmental Research Letters

3(2), 024008.

Vogel, C., Moser, S.C., Kasperson, R.E., Dabelko, G.D., 2007. Linking vulnerability, adaptation,

and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships. Global Environmental

Change 17(3-4), 349–364.

37

Wardekker, A.J., van der Sluijs, J.P., Janssen, P.H.M., Kloprogge, P., Petersen, A.C., 2008. Uncer-

tainty communication in environmental assessments: views from the Dutch science-policy inter-

face. Environmental Science & Policy 11(7), 627–641.

Watson, R., 2005. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy

interface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360(1454):

471–477.

White, R.M., Fischer, A., Marshall, K., Travis, J.M.J., Webb, T.J., di Falco, S., Redpath, S.M., van

der Wal, R., 2009. Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity

conflicts. Land Use Policy 26(2), 242–253.

Whyte, W.F. (Ed.), 1991. Participatory action research. Sage publications, Newbury Park.

Wickson, F., Carew, A.L., Russell, A.W., 2006. Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quanda-

ries and quality. Futures 38(9), 1046–1059.

Wilson, D.C., 2009. The paradoxes of Transparency: Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fish-

eries Management in Europe. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Young, I.M., 1996. Communication and the Other: beyond deliberative democracy. In: Benhabib, S.

(Ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton Univer-

sity Press, Princeton, pp. 120–135.