136
J. Zscheischler
7.4.5 The Application of TDR Is Often Shortened
Furthermore, echoing this rather vague understanding of TDR, a shortened application of TDR resulting in multiple differences from the proposed ideal–typical concept
was found (Zscheischler et al. 2017). The majority of the investigated projects showed
no element of an ideal–typical co-design process for the initial phase. Instead, project
issues and composition were strongly shaped by pragmatism, following the logic of
temporary projects. “Feasibility” and “efficiency” preclude ideal–typical proceeding.
Thus, individuals or core groups of a few people (mainly representing science) determined the project objectives and desirable partners from science and practice alone.
Scientific and practice partners and the project objectives were mainly selected based
on previous projects, pre-existing contacts and networks. This pattern can be observed
in all projects, which thus stresses the importance of mutual trust and network reliance
in the selection of project partners.
7.4.6 Multidisciplinarity Prevailed
Interdisciplinary collaboration that integrates conceptual frameworks and theory
from different disciplines remained an exception; there was often no strategic planning or management (Zscheischler et al. 2017). Some scientists met, while other
sub-projects remained separate from each other in the projects under investigation.
Although dependencies led to greater exchange between sub-projects, there were
attempts to avoid such dependencies owing to fears of a delay in project organisation.
The projects were shaped by a strong natural science orientation from the very
beginning. When asked about interdisciplinary collaboration in their projects, interviewees often cited adjacent disciplines in the field of land-related ecosystem
research, such as agricultural science, forest science and hydrology.
As such, alternating perspectives on sustainable land issues from the humanities
and social sciences were marginalised. Social science contributions were generally
recognised in principle, but were rarely placed at the heart of the project from an
overall perspective. Thus, collaboration between methodologically and ontologically “distanced” disciplines remained rather additive. In most projects, social scientists were not only outnumbered, but also classified as “interface specialists” who
routinely worked as transfer agents or science communicators.
7.4.7 Involvement of Practitioners Aims at Acceptance
and Implementation
There were different roles played by actors from practice, and their incorporated
knowledge bases. One emphasis was placed on the involvement of such actors for
J. Zscheischler
7.4.5 The Application of TDR Is Often Shortened
Furthermore, echoing this rather vague understanding of TDR, a shortened application of TDR resulting in multiple differences from the proposed ideal–typical concept
was found (Zscheischler et al. 2017). The majority of the investigated projects showed
no element of an ideal–typical co-design process for the initial phase. Instead, project
issues and composition were strongly shaped by pragmatism, following the logic of
temporary projects. “Feasibility” and “efficiency” preclude ideal–typical proceeding.
Thus, individuals or core groups of a few people (mainly representing science) determined the project objectives and desirable partners from science and practice alone.
Scientific and practice partners and the project objectives were mainly selected based
on previous projects, pre-existing contacts and networks. This pattern can be observed
in all projects, which thus stresses the importance of mutual trust and network reliance
in the selection of project partners.
7.4.6 Multidisciplinarity Prevailed
Interdisciplinary collaboration that integrates conceptual frameworks and theory
from different disciplines remained an exception; there was often no strategic planning or management (Zscheischler et al. 2017). Some scientists met, while other
sub-projects remained separate from each other in the projects under investigation.
Although dependencies led to greater exchange between sub-projects, there were
attempts to avoid such dependencies owing to fears of a delay in project organisation.
The projects were shaped by a strong natural science orientation from the very
beginning. When asked about interdisciplinary collaboration in their projects, interviewees often cited adjacent disciplines in the field of land-related ecosystem
research, such as agricultural science, forest science and hydrology.
As such, alternating perspectives on sustainable land issues from the humanities
and social sciences were marginalised. Social science contributions were generally
recognised in principle, but were rarely placed at the heart of the project from an
overall perspective. Thus, collaboration between methodologically and ontologically “distanced” disciplines remained rather additive. In most projects, social scientists were not only outnumbered, but also classified as “interface specialists” who
routinely worked as transfer agents or science communicators.
7.4.7 Involvement of Practitioners Aims at Acceptance
and Implementation
There were different roles played by actors from practice, and their incorporated
knowledge bases. One emphasis was placed on the involvement of such actors for