Different perspectives on a common goal? The Q-method as a formative assessment to elucidate varying expectations towards transdisciplinary research collaborations

被引:7
作者
Radinger-Peer, Verena [1 ]
Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Elisabeth [1 ]
Penker, Marianne [1 ]
Gugerell, Katharina [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nat Resources & Life Sci, Inst Sustainable Econ Dev, Dept Econ & Social Sci, Feistmantelstr 4, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
[2] Univ Nat Resources & Life Sci, Inst Landscape Planning, Dept Landscape Spatial & Infrastruct Sci, Peter Jordan Str 65, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
关键词
Transdisciplinarity; Heterogeneity; Transdisciplinary research collaboration; Viewpoints; Q-method; KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION; PROJECTS; IMPACT; INTERDISCIPLINARY; EXPERIENCES; FRAMEWORK; SCIENCE; STEPS;
D O I
10.1007/s11625-022-01192-1
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Transdisciplinary 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 'Romerland 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.
引用
收藏
页码:2459 / 2472
页数:14
相关论文
共 71 条
  • [1] Mobilizing transdisciplinary collaborations: collective reflections on decentering academia in knowledge production
    Alonso-Yanez, Gabriela
    House-Peters, Lily
    Garcia-Cartagena, Martin
    Bonelli, Sebastian
    Lorenzo-Arana, Ignacio
    Ohira, Marcella
    [J]. GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2019, 2
  • [2] Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation
    Alvarez, Sophie
    Douthwaite, Boru
    Thiele, Graham
    Mackay, Ronald
    Cordoba, Diana
    Tehelen, Katherine
    [J]. DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE, 2010, 20 (08) : 946 - 958
  • [3] Knowledge Production and Learning for Sustainable Landscapes: Seven Steps Using Social-Ecological Systems as Laboratories
    Angelstam, Per
    Elbakidze, Marine
    Axelsson, Robert
    Dixelius, Malcolm
    Tornblom, Johan
    [J]. AMBIO, 2013, 42 (02) : 116 - 128
  • [5] Baker R., 2017, QUALITATIVE METHODS, P163
  • [6] 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?
    Bammer, Gabriele
    O'Rourke, Michael
    O'Connell, Deborah
    Neuhauser, Linda
    Midgley, Gerald
    Klein, Julie Thompson
    Grigg, Nicola J.
    Gadlin, Howard
    Elsum, Ian R.
    Bursztyn, Marcel
    Fulton, Elizabeth A.
    Pohl, Christian
    Smithson, Michael
    Vilsmaier, Ulli
    Bergmann, Matthias
    Jaeger, Jill
    Merkx, Femke
    Baptista, Bianca Vienni
    Burgman, Mark A.
    Walker, Daniel H.
    Young, John
    Bradbury, Hilary
    Crawford, Lynn
    Haryanto, Budi
    Pachanee, Cha-aim
    Polk, Merritt
    Richardson, George P.
    [J]. PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS, 2020, 6 (1)
  • [7] Capacity building for transformational leadership and transdisciplinarity
    Barth, Matthias
    Bruhn, Andrea
    Lam, David P. M.
    Bergmann, Matthias
    Lang, Daniel J.
    [J]. GAIA-ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, 2020, 29 (03): : 195 - 197
  • [8] Dialogues between Academics and Practitioners: The Role of Generative Dialogic Encounters
    Beech, Nic
    MacIntosh, Robert
    MacLean, Donald
    [J]. ORGANIZATION STUDIES, 2010, 31 (9-10) : 1341 - 1367
  • [9] Transdisciplinary sustainability research in real-world labs: success factors and methods for change
    Bergmann, Matthias
    Schaepke, Niko
    Marg, Oskar
    Stelzer, Franziska
    Lang, Daniel J.
    Bossert, Michael
    Gantert, Marius
    Haeussler, Elke
    Marquardt, Editha
    Piontek, Felix M.
    Potthast, Thomas
    Rhodius, Regina
    Rudolph, Matthias
    Ruddat, Michael
    Seebacher, Andreas
    Sussmann, Nico
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, 2021, 16 (02) : 541 - 564
  • [10] The reality of transdisciplinarity: a framework-based self-reflection from science and practice leaders
    Binder, Claudia R.
    Absenger-Helmli, Iris
    Schilling, Thorsten
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, 2015, 10 (04) : 545 - 562