220
H. Kanning et al.
The existing accompanying research in the Anhalt Real-World Laboratory is
indeed geared towards producing knowledge on the processes that take place in the
real-world laboratory. According to Defila and Di Giulio (2018b), however, the relation to individual projects in the real-world laboratory can be described as a relation
to the “object of research” that is characterised by dependence and an unequal distribution of power. This relation to the object is very much apparent in the real-world
laboratory. The strong substantive involvement of the association’s main financial
backer gives it access to information about the individual projects. What is more, in
addition to the geographical proximity of the accompanying research to the association’s sponsors (both from outside the region), the financial backer’s interests are
close to those of the research institution, namely the effectiveness of energy policy
and the national recognition of achievements. As such, the tensions described by
Defila and Di Giulio (2018b) do not occur in the sponsor’s relation to accompanying
research, but there are tensions in both their relations to regional stakeholders. There
is a realisation that the establishment of the Anhalt Real-World Laboratory, driven
by practitioner stakeholders, could well have benefited from accompaniment experienced in transdisciplinary research in order to cope with integrating the different
bases and forms of knowledge.
In the BMBF research project entitled “The re-productive town”, within which
urban laboratories are initiated and developed, this was achieved by contracting out
support in the experience process, the knowledge process and the process of transferring results—although it was not possible to describe this that clearly at the time of
the application. The knowledge of experienced transdisciplinary researchers is necessary to integrate knowledge bases from practice and science; to produce transferable
knowledge; and, not least, to ensure the continuous self-reflection of different, sometimes changing roles in the transdisciplinary learning process. Ideally, such knowledge should be involved as early as at the stage of conceptually designing real-world
laboratories. In this case, scientific accompaniment by a neutral moderator such as
sustainify GmbH proved to be successful in the joint research project, ensuring the
integration of different bases and forms of knowledge as well as the self-reflection
of the practice and scientific partners involved. This insight is consistent with the
recommendations already made by Parodi et al. to ensure “co-created accompaniment that supports real-world laboratories in a cooperative, advisory manner” [own
translation] (2018: 179).
11.4 A Summary Critical Appraisal and Outlook
Real-world laboratories are a relatively young and yet highly diverse format that is
interpreted and shaped in a strongly divergent manner by practitioners in some cases.
The debate has only just begun and is still being shaped. In principle, many of the
characteristics of real-world laboratories discussed are not new for sustainable land
management, such as the development of common problem definitions and solutions
(co-design, co-production), as is often the case especially in informal processes of
H. Kanning et al.
The existing accompanying research in the Anhalt Real-World Laboratory is
indeed geared towards producing knowledge on the processes that take place in the
real-world laboratory. According to Defila and Di Giulio (2018b), however, the relation to individual projects in the real-world laboratory can be described as a relation
to the “object of research” that is characterised by dependence and an unequal distribution of power. This relation to the object is very much apparent in the real-world
laboratory. The strong substantive involvement of the association’s main financial
backer gives it access to information about the individual projects. What is more, in
addition to the geographical proximity of the accompanying research to the association’s sponsors (both from outside the region), the financial backer’s interests are
close to those of the research institution, namely the effectiveness of energy policy
and the national recognition of achievements. As such, the tensions described by
Defila and Di Giulio (2018b) do not occur in the sponsor’s relation to accompanying
research, but there are tensions in both their relations to regional stakeholders. There
is a realisation that the establishment of the Anhalt Real-World Laboratory, driven
by practitioner stakeholders, could well have benefited from accompaniment experienced in transdisciplinary research in order to cope with integrating the different
bases and forms of knowledge.
In the BMBF research project entitled “The re-productive town”, within which
urban laboratories are initiated and developed, this was achieved by contracting out
support in the experience process, the knowledge process and the process of transferring results—although it was not possible to describe this that clearly at the time of
the application. The knowledge of experienced transdisciplinary researchers is necessary to integrate knowledge bases from practice and science; to produce transferable
knowledge; and, not least, to ensure the continuous self-reflection of different, sometimes changing roles in the transdisciplinary learning process. Ideally, such knowledge should be involved as early as at the stage of conceptually designing real-world
laboratories. In this case, scientific accompaniment by a neutral moderator such as
sustainify GmbH proved to be successful in the joint research project, ensuring the
integration of different bases and forms of knowledge as well as the self-reflection
of the practice and scientific partners involved. This insight is consistent with the
recommendations already made by Parodi et al. to ensure “co-created accompaniment that supports real-world laboratories in a cooperative, advisory manner” [own
translation] (2018: 179).
11.4 A Summary Critical Appraisal and Outlook
Real-world laboratories are a relatively young and yet highly diverse format that is
interpreted and shaped in a strongly divergent manner by practitioners in some cases.
The debate has only just begun and is still being shaped. In principle, many of the
characteristics of real-world laboratories discussed are not new for sustainable land
management, such as the development of common problem definitions and solutions
(co-design, co-production), as is often the case especially in informal processes of