7 Transdisciplinary Research in Land Use Science …
135
they sought to reach a TD threshold that had to be passed to obtain funding; others
changed their minds during the course of projects.
Nevertheless, TDR appears to be welcomed as an opportunity to pursue and test
the transformation measures intended to achieve sustainability goals. Scientists are
highly motivated to contribute to more sustainable land use.
Practitioners exhibited motivations and interests that differed greatly to those of
scientists. The involvement of practitioners in the research process was considered
by scientists to be one of the main difficulties in TDR. Interview partners occasionally criticised practice partners. They complained about practice partner saturation,
about their disinterest in integrated and abstract approaches, and their sole focus on
solution-based results. The science partners therefore made a greater effort to involve
stakeholders with an affinity for risk and an interest in experimentation.
7.4.4 Understanding of TDR Remained Vague
The studies (ibid.) showed that understanding of TDR among researchers who apply
TD differs from the conceptual advancing discussion led by scientists who advocate
TD in the literature. Although an increase in consistency is apparent in the TD
literature, there is only a vague understanding of the concept itself among the relevant
researchers.
In one of the very few empirical studies on TDR, Tress et al. (2005) demonstrated
that 81 per cent of researchers who performed TD had only a vague understanding
of the concept. Almost one decade later, this vague understanding still prevails, as
shown by the results. Nonetheless, the analysis of 13 TDR projects (Zscheischler
et al. 2017) indicates that a shared notion of TD as a form of “science-practice
collaboration” starting with a “real-world problem” is common to all projects. Other
central features of TDR, as discussed in the theoretical literature, such as “mutual
learning” and “knowledge integration”, exhibit very little consideration, or none at
all.
Moreover, TD appears to be conceived as an instrument of transfer, meaning
the application of real-world problem solutions from academia to practice. In this
context, empirical studies revealed a common understanding of TDR as an approach
for harmonising research results with the requirements of practice, which is a rather
“shortened” notion of TDR.
The general uncertainty among researchers with regard to the concept of TDR is
also documented by the key terms used in project proposals – they are hesitant when
asked about their understanding of TDR and the success of their project, or when
this was openly discussed.
135
they sought to reach a TD threshold that had to be passed to obtain funding; others
changed their minds during the course of projects.
Nevertheless, TDR appears to be welcomed as an opportunity to pursue and test
the transformation measures intended to achieve sustainability goals. Scientists are
highly motivated to contribute to more sustainable land use.
Practitioners exhibited motivations and interests that differed greatly to those of
scientists. The involvement of practitioners in the research process was considered
by scientists to be one of the main difficulties in TDR. Interview partners occasionally criticised practice partners. They complained about practice partner saturation,
about their disinterest in integrated and abstract approaches, and their sole focus on
solution-based results. The science partners therefore made a greater effort to involve
stakeholders with an affinity for risk and an interest in experimentation.
7.4.4 Understanding of TDR Remained Vague
The studies (ibid.) showed that understanding of TDR among researchers who apply
TD differs from the conceptual advancing discussion led by scientists who advocate
TD in the literature. Although an increase in consistency is apparent in the TD
literature, there is only a vague understanding of the concept itself among the relevant
researchers.
In one of the very few empirical studies on TDR, Tress et al. (2005) demonstrated
that 81 per cent of researchers who performed TD had only a vague understanding
of the concept. Almost one decade later, this vague understanding still prevails, as
shown by the results. Nonetheless, the analysis of 13 TDR projects (Zscheischler
et al. 2017) indicates that a shared notion of TD as a form of “science-practice
collaboration” starting with a “real-world problem” is common to all projects. Other
central features of TDR, as discussed in the theoretical literature, such as “mutual
learning” and “knowledge integration”, exhibit very little consideration, or none at
all.
Moreover, TD appears to be conceived as an instrument of transfer, meaning
the application of real-world problem solutions from academia to practice. In this
context, empirical studies revealed a common understanding of TDR as an approach
for harmonising research results with the requirements of practice, which is a rather
“shortened” notion of TDR.
The general uncertainty among researchers with regard to the concept of TDR is
also documented by the key terms used in project proposals – they are hesitant when
asked about their understanding of TDR and the success of their project, or when
this was openly discussed.