7 Transdisciplinary Research in Land Use Science …
137
the production of spatial development models and scenarios (“Leitbild” processes),
for acceptance analyses, and for the testing of technical innovations at practitioners’
facilities or sites (Zscheischler et al. 2017).
The quality of the involvement processes under investigation differed widely,
ranging from projects with highly intensive co-operation and co-creation of knowledge to projects that conducted information activities as participative measures
only. The overall picture reveals that information and consultation events clearly
outweighed more integrative approaches and methods. Stakeholder and public acceptance of science activities and implementation appeared to be the prevailing goal of
stakeholder involvement. Smaller projects (in terms of the number of institutions
and partners involved) reported a noticeably more intensive exchange of information
and perspectives among project members. However, one of the largest consortiums
(approximately 35 partners) experienced a very successful stakeholder dialogue
process involving more than 60 actors from practice. Unfortunately, these activities remained unattached to the core item of the project, which led to frustration for
both the dialogue moderators (in this case scientists) and their non-academic project
partners.
As a general observation, many scientists consider their research entirely separately from the stakeholder process. Others displayed a rather limited conception of
stakeholder involvement. As an example, specific work packages were outsourced to
providers that had been termed “non-scientific project partners”. Another frequent
expression of that scientific “services” mentality was the provision of testing areas
by landowners.
Non-academic actors were frequently classified as “partners” (bound to the project
through contracts) and “actors” (involved through interviews and surveys, focus
groups or workshops). Practice partners from municipalities, public authorities,
NGOs and so forth were often bound to the project via (co-funded) employment
at their respective institution.
One observed strategy was that many projects implemented “regional coordinators” who were assigned to establish or strengthen multiple communication processes
involving (a) science and practice, (b) horizontal cross-sectoral communication (e.g.
land management-related local authorities such as planning, environment, economy),
and (c) vertical actor-based communication (e.g. micro-level to macro-level actors).
This demanding position was frequently occupied by novices from universities who
started from scratch, often without the expert knowledge of regional networks and
peculiarities. Thus, project coordinators emphasised that the success of participative
action depended strongly on the personality of “regional coordinators”.
Instead of a strategic concept of knowledge integration, the composition of objectives and results in the form of summaries and in the manner of multidisciplinary
research was observed.
137
the production of spatial development models and scenarios (“Leitbild” processes),
for acceptance analyses, and for the testing of technical innovations at practitioners’
facilities or sites (Zscheischler et al. 2017).
The quality of the involvement processes under investigation differed widely,
ranging from projects with highly intensive co-operation and co-creation of knowledge to projects that conducted information activities as participative measures
only. The overall picture reveals that information and consultation events clearly
outweighed more integrative approaches and methods. Stakeholder and public acceptance of science activities and implementation appeared to be the prevailing goal of
stakeholder involvement. Smaller projects (in terms of the number of institutions
and partners involved) reported a noticeably more intensive exchange of information
and perspectives among project members. However, one of the largest consortiums
(approximately 35 partners) experienced a very successful stakeholder dialogue
process involving more than 60 actors from practice. Unfortunately, these activities remained unattached to the core item of the project, which led to frustration for
both the dialogue moderators (in this case scientists) and their non-academic project
partners.
As a general observation, many scientists consider their research entirely separately from the stakeholder process. Others displayed a rather limited conception of
stakeholder involvement. As an example, specific work packages were outsourced to
providers that had been termed “non-scientific project partners”. Another frequent
expression of that scientific “services” mentality was the provision of testing areas
by landowners.
Non-academic actors were frequently classified as “partners” (bound to the project
through contracts) and “actors” (involved through interviews and surveys, focus
groups or workshops). Practice partners from municipalities, public authorities,
NGOs and so forth were often bound to the project via (co-funded) employment
at their respective institution.
One observed strategy was that many projects implemented “regional coordinators” who were assigned to establish or strengthen multiple communication processes
involving (a) science and practice, (b) horizontal cross-sectoral communication (e.g.
land management-related local authorities such as planning, environment, economy),
and (c) vertical actor-based communication (e.g. micro-level to macro-level actors).
This demanding position was frequently occupied by novices from universities who
started from scratch, often without the expert knowledge of regional networks and
peculiarities. Thus, project coordinators emphasised that the success of participative
action depended strongly on the personality of “regional coordinators”.
Instead of a strategic concept of knowledge integration, the composition of objectives and results in the form of summaries and in the manner of multidisciplinary
research was observed.