No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Advanced high‐strength steels may reduce the use of nonrenewable resources and energy given that the amount of material needed is smaller, compared to traditional steel grades. Still, advanced steel grades are not utilized to the extent that could be expected. This study examines stakeholders’ preferences of steel characteristics and perceived barriers to the introduction of new materials. Focus group interviews were used to identify steel characteristics and perceived barriers. Stakeholder preferences of steel characteristics were evaluated through a conjoint analysis; the results showed that low weight was given the highest priority, followed by high impact strength and low price. Low chromium content was the steel characteristic of least interest. Perceived barriers to the introduction of high‐strength steel were categorized as technical barriers, knowledge barriers, scrap management barriers, suitability barriers, and cost barriers.

While transdisciplinary (TD) research is desired in order to solve real world sustainability issues, this may be challenging for both academic and non-academic participants. Supporting learning through evaluation, we analyzed a project aiming at sustainable transport infrastructures. After developing a TD research framework as a benchmark, two external independent evaluators interviewed all project researchers, representatives for end-users, and donors. The evaluators compared results with the framework, and evaluators and participants critically reflected on the results together. There were three inconsistencies relative to the framework: (1) limited understanding of TD research among project management, end-users, and most of the researchers; (2) no structured learning process among end-users; instead, they expressed very diverse opinions about what they expected from the project; (3) project leaders had limited understanding of the special challenges of TD research, did not fully understand the status of the project’s social system, and thus did not act as facilitators of the required collaborative learning process. Non-academic participants saw themselves as customers and not as partners in the knowledge production process. We conclude that TD problem-solving research requires much time and needs facilitation and training. A preparatory phase with a lower level of funding would be helpful in preparing for TD processes.

No abstract