What happens when academics leave their comfortable armchairs and genuinely engage with the people they write about? According to David Ludwig, that is precisely what is needed. In his recent book: Transformative Transdisciplinarity- An Introduction to Community-Based Philosophy, he argues for science with a human face and introduces a concept he helped develop: community-based philosophy.
"Philosophers are good at discussing big questions such as justice or the role of science," Ludwig explains. "But too often they speak in abstract terms, about people rather than with people." Community-based philosophy is therefore a call to step out of the armchair. Instead of merely analysing and prescribing, philosophers and other academics should participate, listen and think alongside communities.
Science is not detached
This same idea runs throughout Ludwig’s book. Humanity faces existential challenges, from climate change and biodiversity loss to inequality and authoritarian politics. Science plays a crucial role in addressing them. Yet Ludwig argues that scientists should stop pretending they stand outside these crises.
"Scientists are citizens too," he says. "We have concerns and commitments. Being a good scientist does not mean becoming a fact-producing machine disconnected from the world. It means asking how scientific methods can contribute to problems we genuinely care about."
This requires a shift in posture. Not the stance of the neutral outsider who simply provides facts, but that of an engaged member of society. In institutions such as Wageningen, where research directly touches food, nature and health, that engagement is not optional but fundamental.
Whose knowledge counts?
A central question in the book is whose knowledge matters. Academic research is often treated as the primary or even sole source of legitimate expertise. Yet when dealing with complex issues such as food security or environmental management, many forms of knowledge are relevant.
"Farmers, fishers, Indigenous communities, health practitioners and policy makers all’hold valuable expertise," Ludwig notes. "If scientists prioritize findings based only on their knowledge, collaboration becomes impossible."
This hierarchy of knowledge has historical roots. In colonial contexts, European actors often framed themselves as bringing civilisation and knowledge to supposedly ignorant populations. Such assumptions still shape contemporary development practices, where knowledge is imagined to flow from North to South. The result can be a paternalistic attitude that undermines genuine partnership.
Beyond interdisciplinarity
Interdisciplinary research is now widely promoted. But Ludwig argues that this is not enough. He distinguishes between interdisciplinarity, where different academic disciplines collaborate, and transdisciplinarity, which brings in expertise from outside academia.
Transdisciplinarity includes farmers, fishers, Indigenous communities, teachers, medical practitioners and others as knowledge partners. However, Ludwig warns that simply "integrating" local knowledge into academic projects is not necessarily transformative. If researchers extract knowledge for their own publications without benefiting the communities involved, inequalities persist.
This is why he speaks of transformative trans disciplinarity. The aim is not only to add different knowledge sources, but to rethink how research is organised and for whom it is conducted. Science should support the needs and goals of communities, rather than treating them as data providers.
He points to the example of the Center for Indigenous Knowledge and Organizational Development (CIKOD) in Ghana, a local organisation that starts with community priorities and only then invites scientists if their expertise can help. The order matters. The guiding question becomes how science can contribute to community goals, not how communities can contribute to academic output.
""Farmers, fishers, Indigenous communities, health practitioners and policy makers all’hold valuable expertise""
Structural tensions
Such an approach sits uneasily within current academic structures. Careers are built on publications, citations and competitive grants. Doctoral researchers operate under tight timelines. Communities, understandably, do not prioritise journal articles.
"Transformative work often requires scientists to prioritise community impact over career metrics," Ludwig says. "But institutions must create space for that. Otherwise people are forced back into the logic of short-term outputs."
Beyond institutional reform, this approach demands different skills. Listening, building trust and sustaining long-term relationships are not typically central in research training. Yet they are essential for meaningful collaboration.
Rethinking incentives
Funding mechanisms are part of the challenge. Short project cycles rarely allow time to establish trust and co-develop solutions. Ludwig’s message to research funders and policy makers is clear: support longer-term programmes, recognise societal impact and value collaborative processes that cannot always be reduced to quick publications.
Without such changes, inclusive and community-engaged science risks remaining a rhetorical ideal rather than a structural reality.
A human face
Science with a human face does not abandon rigour or objectivity. It acknowledges that scientists are part of the societies they study and that their work is embedded in social and political contexts. Instead of claiming detachment, scientists can take responsibility as participants in collective problem-solving.
Ludwig’s central point is simple but demanding. Global crises do not call for greater distance between science and society. They call for deeper engagement. Science becomes stronger, not weaker, when it openly recognises its human face.