150
J. Zscheischler and S. Rogga
For our analysis,
9 we followed these main categories and chose a rather research
pragmatic approach, adopting the suggestion by Heideloff and Radel (1998) to focus
on a higher degree of abstraction. Thus, we focused on reasonings and meanings
by considering problem framings and definitions and normative orientations of
the desired solutions as well as the underlying strategies. We additionally applied
established categories from the innovation literature, such as the type of innovation
and innovation degree (e.g. Hauschildt et al. 2016; Kasmire et al. 2012; Baregheh
et al. 2009) to determine whether there are any specific properties relevant to SLM
innovations. We also sought to determine the main barriers to the successful implementation and distribution of these innovations, and how attempts were made to
manage and control innovation processes.
8.4 Case Study: The German Funding Programme
“Innovation Groups for Sustainable Land
Management”
As described above, the “Innovation Groups for Sustainable Land Management” (IG)
funding programme (2014–2020) is part of a land-focused funding line initiated by
the BMBF. In contrast to the preceding programme “Sustainable Land Management” (2010–2016), the IG programme focuses on developing systemic solutions to
complex real-world issues, analysing innovation conditions, and building up capacities and competences among the practice actors and scientists involved in order to
drive innovative solutions that have been outlined and defined during the application
process.
In total, nine joint research projects (the “Innovation Groups”, or IGs) were funded
over a period of five years (2014–2019) with Germany as the geographical focus of
application. The IGs differed in size, actor composition (i.e. academic disciplinary
background, practitioners’ background) and research questions. In terms of topics,
the IGs can be clustered in at least four different application fields: (1) research on
regional energy transition in the context of land consumption and land competition;
(2) research on multiple or diversified land use options on the same plot of land;
(3) research on cultural landscape development; and (4) research on interlinkages
between urban and rural spaces. Numerous IGs conducted their research activities
in more than one cluster, e.g. by combining Clusters 3 and 4. Table 8.1 provides
more detailed information on the projects under investigation, along with various
characteristics.
9 Our findings result from accompanying the projects over a period of five years. They are based on
the analysis of project proposals and websites, participatory observations during events, informal
talks and semi-structured interviews with coordinating scientists.
J. Zscheischler and S. Rogga
For our analysis,
9 we followed these main categories and chose a rather research
pragmatic approach, adopting the suggestion by Heideloff and Radel (1998) to focus
on a higher degree of abstraction. Thus, we focused on reasonings and meanings
by considering problem framings and definitions and normative orientations of
the desired solutions as well as the underlying strategies. We additionally applied
established categories from the innovation literature, such as the type of innovation
and innovation degree (e.g. Hauschildt et al. 2016; Kasmire et al. 2012; Baregheh
et al. 2009) to determine whether there are any specific properties relevant to SLM
innovations. We also sought to determine the main barriers to the successful implementation and distribution of these innovations, and how attempts were made to
manage and control innovation processes.
8.4 Case Study: The German Funding Programme
“Innovation Groups for Sustainable Land
Management”
As described above, the “Innovation Groups for Sustainable Land Management” (IG)
funding programme (2014–2020) is part of a land-focused funding line initiated by
the BMBF. In contrast to the preceding programme “Sustainable Land Management” (2010–2016), the IG programme focuses on developing systemic solutions to
complex real-world issues, analysing innovation conditions, and building up capacities and competences among the practice actors and scientists involved in order to
drive innovative solutions that have been outlined and defined during the application
process.
In total, nine joint research projects (the “Innovation Groups”, or IGs) were funded
over a period of five years (2014–2019) with Germany as the geographical focus of
application. The IGs differed in size, actor composition (i.e. academic disciplinary
background, practitioners’ background) and research questions. In terms of topics,
the IGs can be clustered in at least four different application fields: (1) research on
regional energy transition in the context of land consumption and land competition;
(2) research on multiple or diversified land use options on the same plot of land;
(3) research on cultural landscape development; and (4) research on interlinkages
between urban and rural spaces. Numerous IGs conducted their research activities
in more than one cluster, e.g. by combining Clusters 3 and 4. Table 8.1 provides
more detailed information on the projects under investigation, along with various
characteristics.
9 Our findings result from accompanying the projects over a period of five years. They are based on
the analysis of project proposals and websites, participatory observations during events, informal
talks and semi-structured interviews with coordinating scientists.