Abstract
AbstractTransdisciplinary research (TDR) collaborations are considered effective when they yield relevant results for science and practice. In this context, the different expectations, experiences, skills, and disciplines of the team members involved determine TDR collaboration. Using the example of 13 team members involved in the 3-year TDR project ‘Römerland Carnuntum 2040’ (Austria), we aim to identify and compare diverse expectations regarding TDR collaboration. In doing so, we question the often emphasised dichotomy between science and practice as the main challenge of TDR collaboration and aim towards making individual expectations regarding TDR collaboration visible and tangible. The contribution of the present paper is twofold: on the one hand, we provide statements for a formative assessment to externalise implicit expectations, assumptions, and epistemologies of TDR project team members regarding TDR collaboration and results. On the other hand, we present the Q-methodology as a viable approach to uncover diverging viewpoints as visible, tangible, and enunciable differences that need to be acknowledged in early stages of TDR projects when allocating resources and planning further project steps. Our investigations result in two viewpoints: one emphasises learning, collective reflection, and knowledge exchange as the main TDR expectation. The second focuses on ‘changing practices’, assuming that the project supports the introduction of new practices for (sustainable) regional development. These diverging expectations reveal subconscious tensions, which have to be addressed when allocating resources and defining project success within the TDR project.
Funder
Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Sociology and Political Science,Ecology,Geography, Planning and Development,Health (social science),Global and Planetary Change
Reference72 articles.
1. Alonso-Yanez G, House-Peters L, Garcia-Cartagena M, Bonelli S, Lorenzo-Arana I, Ohira M (2019) Mobilizing transdisciplinary collaborations: collective reflections on de centering academia in knowledge production. Glob Sustain 2:e5. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.2
2. Alvarez S, Douthwaite B, Thiele G, Mackay R, Córdoba D, Tehelen K (2010) Participatory impact pathways analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation. Dev Pract 20:946–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2010.513723
3. Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R, Dixelius M, Törnblom J (2013) Knowledge production and learning for sustainable landscapes: seven steps using social–ecological systems as laboratories. Ambio 42:116–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0367-1
4. Baker R, McHugh N, Mason H (2017) Constructing statement sets for use in Q methodology studies. In: Coast J (ed) Qualitative methods for health economics. Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd, London, pp 163–174
5. Bammer G, O’Rourke M, O’Connell D, Neuhauser L, Migdely G, Thompson Klein J, Grigg N, Gadlin H, Elsum IR, Bursztyn M, Fulton E, Pohl C, Smithson M, Vilsmaier U, Bergmann M, Jäger J, Merkx F, Vienni Baptista B, Burgmann M, Walker DH, Young J, Bradbury H, Crawford L, Haryanto B, Pachanee C, Polk M, Richardson GP (2020) Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Commun 6:5. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献