170
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
To analyse the transcribed interviews, we performed a qualitative content analysis
following Mayring’s method (2015). We coded the data with MaxQDA coding software. We started the coding process with concepts from the literature that we expected
to appear in the data (“knowledge transfer”, “knowledge exchange” or “coproduction of knowledge”). Over the course of the coding process, we complemented this
first set of codes with inductively created new codes. Drawing from the coded interviews, we identified barriers and opportunities, and developed a typology of knowledge exchange, including knowledge transfer. We complemented this typology with
elements that had not been explicitly expressed in the interviews, but that represented patterns that had appeared in the data. In the following sections, we do not
present the interview results in detail. Rather, we focus on the summarised results to
present a typology of knowledge exchange, and an overview of the barriers to and
opportunities for knowledge exchange.
9.4 A Typology of Knowledge Exchange in Spatial
Planning, Land Use and Soil Management
in Switzerland
Our analysis of how actors exchange knowledge in Swiss contexts of spatial planning, land use and soil management resulted in a typology of knowledge exchange.
Based on the interviews, we were able to identify six types: (1) knowledge transfer,
(2) knowledge transfer support, (3) knowledge exchange, (4) knowledge exchange
support, (5) participatory knowledge development and use, (6) formal and informal
knowledge exchange. These six types exhibit a total of 21 subtypes, characterising
different ways of exchanging knowledge (Fig. 9.1).
In the typology, we have distinguished between transfer and exchange processes.
We understand knowledge transfer (Type 1) as one-way processes, where knowledge
is imparted from one actor to another actor unidirectionally. In contrast, we define
knowledge exchange (Type 3) as a reciprocal process operating in both directions. We
further differentiate between “knowledge transfer” and “knowledge transfer support”
as well as between “knowledge exchange” and “knowledge exchange support”.
While knowledge transfer as such characterises processes where scientists and policymakers transfer knowledge they themselves have produced or possessed, knowledge transfer support (Type 2) describes processes where boundary organisations
or individual knowledge advocates enable the transfer between science and policymaking. Similarly, we differentiate between knowledge exchange (Type 3) and
knowledge exchange support (Type 4). Moreover, in some of the subtypes, we then
distinguish between direct and indirect processes. Direct knowledge exchange takes
place when actors are in direct contact with other actors. This direct contact may
also be organised by either a boundary organisation or an individual knowledge
advocate, or both. “Indirect knowledge exchange” characterises processes in which
actors do not meet or communicate directly. “Participatory knowledge development
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
To analyse the transcribed interviews, we performed a qualitative content analysis
following Mayring’s method (2015). We coded the data with MaxQDA coding software. We started the coding process with concepts from the literature that we expected
to appear in the data (“knowledge transfer”, “knowledge exchange” or “coproduction of knowledge”). Over the course of the coding process, we complemented this
first set of codes with inductively created new codes. Drawing from the coded interviews, we identified barriers and opportunities, and developed a typology of knowledge exchange, including knowledge transfer. We complemented this typology with
elements that had not been explicitly expressed in the interviews, but that represented patterns that had appeared in the data. In the following sections, we do not
present the interview results in detail. Rather, we focus on the summarised results to
present a typology of knowledge exchange, and an overview of the barriers to and
opportunities for knowledge exchange.
9.4 A Typology of Knowledge Exchange in Spatial
Planning, Land Use and Soil Management
in Switzerland
Our analysis of how actors exchange knowledge in Swiss contexts of spatial planning, land use and soil management resulted in a typology of knowledge exchange.
Based on the interviews, we were able to identify six types: (1) knowledge transfer,
(2) knowledge transfer support, (3) knowledge exchange, (4) knowledge exchange
support, (5) participatory knowledge development and use, (6) formal and informal
knowledge exchange. These six types exhibit a total of 21 subtypes, characterising
different ways of exchanging knowledge (Fig. 9.1).
In the typology, we have distinguished between transfer and exchange processes.
We understand knowledge transfer (Type 1) as one-way processes, where knowledge
is imparted from one actor to another actor unidirectionally. In contrast, we define
knowledge exchange (Type 3) as a reciprocal process operating in both directions. We
further differentiate between “knowledge transfer” and “knowledge transfer support”
as well as between “knowledge exchange” and “knowledge exchange support”.
While knowledge transfer as such characterises processes where scientists and policymakers transfer knowledge they themselves have produced or possessed, knowledge transfer support (Type 2) describes processes where boundary organisations
or individual knowledge advocates enable the transfer between science and policymaking. Similarly, we differentiate between knowledge exchange (Type 3) and
knowledge exchange support (Type 4). Moreover, in some of the subtypes, we then
distinguish between direct and indirect processes. Direct knowledge exchange takes
place when actors are in direct contact with other actors. This direct contact may
also be organised by either a boundary organisation or an individual knowledge
advocate, or both. “Indirect knowledge exchange” characterises processes in which
actors do not meet or communicate directly. “Participatory knowledge development