8. Kommunikation beobachten, ihr einen Rahmen geben und sie reflektieren

Krainer, Larissa; Reitinger, Elisabeth; Zepke, Georg; Lehner, Erich

doi:10.1515/transcript.9783839424841.135

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings confirmed digital tools´crucial role for transparency and information flow (Fei, 2011;Härtel et al, 2015), and integration (Fei, 2011;Potterbusch and Lotrecchiano, 2018). Beyond clear and coherent knowledge presentation (Bergmann et al, 2010;Defila et al, 2006;Jahn, 2008), they support communicative knowledge transfer encompassing accessible knowledge resources (Anders, 2013), connectable language (Krainer et al, 2014), and visual tools (Godemann, 2008;Lang et al, 2012). Fewer mobile actors (e.g., caring parents) appreciated the benefits of videoconferences, such as saving time or travelling.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Due to COVID-19 lockdowns, a dynamic communication adaptation was particularly important due to the constantly changing conditions (Bagnol et al, 2016;Kalmár and Stenfert, 2020;Krainer et al, 2014;Kushnir, 2021;Pohl et al, 2008). Diversity of team experiences allowed for context-specific strategies (Bagnol et al, 2016;Kushnir, 2021;Nagy et al, 2020;Robasky et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The integration expert designs, plans, implements and moderates the integrative processes, provides opportunities for integrative exchange and supports the emergence of integrated outcomes (Hoffmann et al, 2020). To accomplish these tasks, integration experts also need to think about how to "prepare, present and discuss results in a target group-specific way" (Krainer et al, 2014).…”

Section: Communication Tools Supporting Different Actor Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Integration in transdisciplinary research depends on the design and maintenance of transparent and structured communication processes (Aenis, 2010;Bagnol et al, 2016;Kushnir, 2021;Robasky et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2019;Wickson et al, 2006) and communication at eye level between all actors involved (Kalmár and Stenfert, 2020;Krainer et al, 2014). Open and inclusive communication fosters information sharing, mutual understanding and collaboration (Fleming et al, 2021;Kushnir, 2021), and conscious communication is important for integration (Bergmann et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this way, elaborated knowledge can be presented in a comprehensible and connectable way (Hunecke, 2011;Jahn, 2008). Everyday language and the avoidance of scientific terms facilitate mutual understanding (Pohl et al, 2008); a common, linkable language improves integration (Krainer et al, 2014;Tress et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Communication tools and their support for integration in transdisciplinary research projects

Fischer,

Radinger-Peer,

Krainer

et al. 2024

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated how different communication tools support integration in transdisciplinary research. Ten digital and analogue tools with different communication directions and degrees of participation were tested in a 3.5-year transdisciplinary research project. Based on an exploratory operationalisation of the social-organisational, cognitive-epistemic and communicative dimensions of integration, we compared the tools’ integration support as perceived by 80 practitioners, 6 scientists and 3 integration experts. The multi-methods approach involved three surveys at different project phases, an ex-post poster assessment and interviews. The study showed that a variety of tools can serve diverse actors’ needs with varying preconditions and can play a supportive role for integration. Throughout the research process, the project website was identified as the central information platform for all groups. A living document in the form of a large hand-drawn poster and sketchnotes provided quick and understandable overviews and were particularly relevant for the communicative and the social-organisational dimension of integration. Digital videoconferences performed best in the cognitive-epistemic dimension and were found to be effective for information exchange, while online voting, emails and minutes were perceived to be less relevant. The involvement of integration experts with diverse communication and visualisation skills can support adaptive, context-specific and dynamic choices of communication tools, making project outcomes accessible to a variety of actors in a timely and transparent way throughout the project. The communication tools that were perceived by the actors to be most supportive were those that used visual and textual sign systems and facilitated a strong group identity. Therefore, we conclude that future research should include and operationalise a fourth, emotional dimension of integration.

show abstract