262
S. Rogga
existing regulations and assessing the impact of the transfer measure taken. It is
certainly easier to launch a regional campaign for sustainable land use in public
than to influence existing legal framework conditions, especially if these are set
at supraregional level.
The conceptual model of strategic T&I in SLM described may be used by project
architects and coordinators at different stages of the research cycle. It is of particular
value as a “tool” for planning outreach activities during the starting phase of projects.
However, it can also be used as a project management method that sparks debate
between project partners on the desired impact and the realistic output of SLM
projects, i.e. to develop a mutually shared “model of change” in real-world settings.
Nonetheless, the model invokes various limitations that should be briefly noted.
First, it depicts an idealised form of a complex “transfer reality”. Actors cannot be
classified into rigid roles as they appear in the model, nor do they think and act
consistently and rationally in the sense of sociological institutionalism. Transdisciplinary research means scrutinising existing structures and modes of operation, and
dissolving boundaries between actors. In addition, addressing a broad spectrum of
actors is a practical challenge that is virtually impossible to operationalise in this
form.
Second, additional actors of knowledge transfer that influence research projects
are left out, such as traditional forms of academic knowledge transfer in which
academia constantly feeds collaborative research with current developments in
research. In addition, the quality and salience of research results are fundamental
if research wants to have an impact on society. Economic institutions that are left
out play an important role in rather technology-based solutions, especially when it
comes to marketability and, ultimately, to stabilising solutions after the end of the
project cycle.
Third, an evaluation of token T&I measures is not easy to apply as time lags prevail,
i.e. diffusion effects might be visible after a certain period. As stated above, changing
the regulative and institutional framework that influences land use usually presupposes democratic processes at multiple hierarchy levels. Also, attribution between
measure and effect may not be clearly identified. If, for instance, a whole set of
different transfer activities led to a desired effect, then how do we know which
of them was effective? Both aspects complicate the adaptive management of T&I
processes during an ongoing project.
Each transfer approach pathway is not exclusive and isolated from each other.
Instead, actors, measures and framework conditions mutually influence each other
in the transfer process. A combination of different approaches therefore seems necessary. It is therefore strongly recommended to integrate different perspectives for the
area of SLM as they hold the potential for synergies and catalytic effects (see Leach
et al. 2010; Stringer and Dougill 2013). The choice of path is determined by efficiency criteria on the one hand and the actual content of the research project on the
other.
S. Rogga
existing regulations and assessing the impact of the transfer measure taken. It is
certainly easier to launch a regional campaign for sustainable land use in public
than to influence existing legal framework conditions, especially if these are set
at supraregional level.
The conceptual model of strategic T&I in SLM described may be used by project
architects and coordinators at different stages of the research cycle. It is of particular
value as a “tool” for planning outreach activities during the starting phase of projects.
However, it can also be used as a project management method that sparks debate
between project partners on the desired impact and the realistic output of SLM
projects, i.e. to develop a mutually shared “model of change” in real-world settings.
Nonetheless, the model invokes various limitations that should be briefly noted.
First, it depicts an idealised form of a complex “transfer reality”. Actors cannot be
classified into rigid roles as they appear in the model, nor do they think and act
consistently and rationally in the sense of sociological institutionalism. Transdisciplinary research means scrutinising existing structures and modes of operation, and
dissolving boundaries between actors. In addition, addressing a broad spectrum of
actors is a practical challenge that is virtually impossible to operationalise in this
form.
Second, additional actors of knowledge transfer that influence research projects
are left out, such as traditional forms of academic knowledge transfer in which
academia constantly feeds collaborative research with current developments in
research. In addition, the quality and salience of research results are fundamental
if research wants to have an impact on society. Economic institutions that are left
out play an important role in rather technology-based solutions, especially when it
comes to marketability and, ultimately, to stabilising solutions after the end of the
project cycle.
Third, an evaluation of token T&I measures is not easy to apply as time lags prevail,
i.e. diffusion effects might be visible after a certain period. As stated above, changing
the regulative and institutional framework that influences land use usually presupposes democratic processes at multiple hierarchy levels. Also, attribution between
measure and effect may not be clearly identified. If, for instance, a whole set of
different transfer activities led to a desired effect, then how do we know which
of them was effective? Both aspects complicate the adaptive management of T&I
processes during an ongoing project.
Each transfer approach pathway is not exclusive and isolated from each other.
Instead, actors, measures and framework conditions mutually influence each other
in the transfer process. A combination of different approaches therefore seems necessary. It is therefore strongly recommended to integrate different perspectives for the
area of SLM as they hold the potential for synergies and catalytic effects (see Leach
et al. 2010; Stringer and Dougill 2013). The choice of path is determined by efficiency criteria on the one hand and the actual content of the research project on the
other.