Complexity of Stakeholder Interaction in Applied Research

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Applied research in complex integrated settings should be recognized as an endeavor that requires transdisciplinary and multisectoral stakeholder interactions. The problems faced in society are quite complex, requiring participation and knowledge from diverse aspects of society, including different disciplines (academia), communities, civil society, and government. Successful applied research relies on nurturing these key stakeholder relationships and interactions. This paper explores the key challenges of stakeholder interaction in applied research in three disciplines in the South African context, based on literature and the experience of authors in their disciplines. The three disciplines include information and communication technology for development, town and regional planning, and natural resource management. We attempt to also compare and contrast these challenges across the disciplines, to identify any commonalities and differences. After considering the mutual challenges and adaptive solutions to address these challenges in the different disciplines, we identify that all three areas in relation to stakeholder interaction appear to exhibit characteristics of complex systems, hence motivating to view applied research as a complex system. In this sense, complexity theory may provide a common language between the different disciplines examining transdisciplinary stakeholder interaction in applied research from a shared perspective.

Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy

“…ES science is part of a participatory landscape of diverse values, rules and knowledge Participatory planning and co-management are common in environmental management, resulting from concerns by civil society on governance of environmental resources and biodiversity (Pade-Khene et al 2013). The politics of environmental negotiation now includes multiple groups and interests, though the extent of inclusion is highly variable and its results diverse (Turnhout et al 2010).…”

The Evolution of Intermediary Activities: Broadening the Concept of Facilitation in Living Labs

“…Some attempts have been made to shed light on the interaction dynamics inside living labs on a more detailed level. Such research has focused on communities of practice and boundary objects (Johansson & Snis, 2011), living lab actors' roles and role patterns (Nyström et al, 2014; Box 2), living lab networks' modes of coordination and participation (Leminen, 2013), functions and roles of public open innovation intermediaries (Bakici et al, 2013), strategic capabilities of living labs (Katzy et al, 2013), paradoxical tensions in living labs (Leminen et al, 2015), complexity in the stakeholder interactions (Pade-Khene et al, 2013), and possibilities of social and cognitive translation between stakeholders (Svensson & Ebbesson, 2010). Part of this work has been attempts to also identify the roles of intermediary actors in living labs (Heikkinen et al, 2007;Nyström et al, 2014; see Box 2).…”

Characteristics, emerging needs, and challenges of transdisciplinary sustainability science: experiences from the German Social-Ecological Research Program

“…TSS integrates different disciplinary knowledge as well as scientific and nonscientific knowledge (Gibbons 1999, Nowotny et al 2001, Buizer et al 2011). While TSS is appropriate to address many real-world sustainability problems, there is increasing complexity in communicating and coordinating TSS (Cundill et al 2005, Pade-Khene et al 2013. This is of particular concern for early career scientists, who need to develop viable career paths.…”