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

Abstract

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 ‘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.

Growing interdisciplinary research capacity for sustainable development: Self-reported evaluation

“…Institutions are responsible for incentivising individual's actions (Woodhill, 2010). Currently, the incentives around research and career progression within research, particularly amongst HIC are focused on publishing papers, and interdisciplinary researchers face challenges in having their achievements and skills recognised in traditional academic career paths (Radinger-Peer et al, 2022, Fam et al, 2020, Guimarães et al, 2019.…”

Working with the tensions of transdisciplinary research: a review and agenda for the future of knowledge co-production in the Anthropocene

“…Furthering the evaluation of research practices, going beyond journal publications and impact factors will require new types of impact assessments such as interviews or surveys in society and uptake in policy (Beyond the Academy, 2022). Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) approach is one other way for measuring impact (Radinger-Peer et al, 2022). At a wider scale, there is a need to evaluate transdisciplinarity at a funding program level (Holzer et al, 2018) to ensure learning from individual projects is fed into future programs.…”

“…If challenges emerge during the research process (Gaziulusoy et al, 2016), commissioners of transdisciplinary research may be asked to recognize the potential uncertainties (Simon & Schiemer, 2015) and be flexible with research plans. Successful collaboration occurs when there is time for co-reflection and social learning, and needs to be written into the project (Hegger et al, 2012; Plummer et al, 2022; Radinger-Peer et al, 2022). However, funders want a clear plan and budget for a project, whereas transdisciplinary projects often involve negotiation along the way, which means that proposals contain an element of uncertainty that is hard to plan for and cost in proposals.…”

“…Brandt et al (2013),Boon et al (2014),Brandt et al (2013),Eigi-Watkin and Koskinen (2023),Guggenheim (2006),Harris and Lyon (2013),Hölsgens et al (2023), Houser et al (2021), Holzer et al (2019,Kok et al (2021),Lux et al (2019),Polk (2015),Schmidt and Pröpper (2017) Evaluating the research practice Allocating time and resources for reflecting about the process Establish systems of co-reflection and learning from the start, preferably face-to-face Allow time and space for co-reflection Develop adaptive strategies and be flexible Feed into design of future projects and funding programsGaziulusoy et al (2016), Holzer et al (2018,Luks and Siebenhüner (2007),Plummer et al (2022),Podesta et al (2013), Radinger-Peer et al ( 2022,Roux et al (2010),Scholz and Steiner (2015b) …”

Diverse types of knowledge on a plate: a multi-perspective and multi-method approach for the transformation of urban food systems towards sustainable diets

“…Other frameworks provide support in evaluating sustainability transition experiments (Luederitz et al 2017) or societal impact (Wolf et al 2013). Some of them focus more on an ex-ante support of the research design (for example, Mauser et al 2013;Radinger-Peer et al 2022), while we looked for an actorfocused ex-post evaluation of knowledge co-production. The chosen framework consists of four elements:…”