Researchers’ Experiences, Positive and Negative, in Integrative Landscape Projects

Abstract

/ Integrative (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary) landscape research projects are becoming increasingly common. As a result, researchers are spending a larger proportion of their professional careers doing integrative work, participating in shifting interdisciplinary teams, and cooperating directly with non-academic participants. Despite the growing importance of integrative research, few studies have investigated researchersÕ experiences in these projects. How do researchers perceive the outcomes of integrative projects, or career effects? Do they view the projects generally as successes or failures? This study analyses researchersÕ experiences in integrative landscape studies and investigates what factors shape these experiences. The data stems from 19 semi-structured qualitative interviews and a Web-based survey among 207 participants in integrative landscape research projects. It finds that researchers experience participation in integrative projects as positive, in particular discussions among participants, networking, teamwork, and gaining new insights and skills. Furthermore, most researchers perceive the projects as successful and as having a positive effect on their careers. Less positive aspects of integration relate to publications and merit points. Factors found to contribute to positive experiences include reaching a high degree of integration amongst the involved disciplines, common definitions of integrative research concepts, and projects that include a large share of fundamental research as well as projects with many project outcomes. Based on these findings, we advise future projects to plan for integration, facilitate discussions, and reach agreement on integrative concepts. We suggest that aspects of fundamental research be included in integrative projects. We also suggest that planning be done at an early stage for peer-reviewed publications, to ensure that participants gain merit points from their participation in integrative research efforts.Integrative (= interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary) landscape projects have increased in number since the 1990s. More and more funding bodies with large national and international programmes support projects in which different disciplines cooperate to solve landscape-related problems

Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-Disciplinary) Sustainability Research

“…While, in general, multidisciplinarity is seen as thematically organized rather than problem oriented [43,48] some contend that the research would normally be focused on a common problem [1,49]. The differences are partly attributable to semantics as it is difficult to imagine a theme that is in some way completely unrelated to a particular problem or series of problems.…”

“…Multidisciplinarity features several academic disciplines in a thematically based investigation with multiple goals-essentially, studies "co-exist in a context" [1]. While researchers aim to share knowledge and compare results from the studies there is no attempt to cross boundaries or generate new integrative knowledge [43]. Each member is able to contribute a professional perspective on the issue [45].…”

“…Interdisciplinary studies focus on addressing specific 'real world' system problems and, as a result, the research process forces participants (from a variety of unrelated disciplines) to cross boundaries to create new knowledge [29,43]. Essentially the major difference from multidisciplinarity lies in the level of integration and cooperation as these projects seek to bridge disciplinary viewpoints [1,45,53] and potentially enable the examination of existing accumulated knowledge from the perspective of a neighboring discipline [54].…”

“…Under the umbrella of integrated research an inexhaustive list of terminologies is used to define the concept, including: collaborative, integral, integrated, complementary, combined, participatory, transepistemic, system-oriented, transprofessional, comprehensive, problem oriented, cross-boundary, holistic, multidisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary [43]. While the basic principle across all these approaches is similar (i.e., focusing on integrated complex problem solving by crossing disciplinary boundaries) there are often subtle, but significant differences between the terms which mean they cannot (or should not) be used interchangeably.…”

“…First, the lack of disciplinary gatekeepers leaves no individual body in charge of defining terms for integrated research-each discipline may adopt its own meaning without fear of question or sanction. Second, the lengthy and complex research procedures are often not reported in interdisciplinary papers (to meet journal publication requirements) and, as a result, the description of the integrated concepts is often so limited that it is difficult to determine what is actually meant by the terms or how they were operationalized [43]. In addition, François [44] suggests "sloppy and inaccurate linguistics and semantics" in journalistic and scientific publications is confusing the notions of inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinarity and notes that this is harmful for an understanding of scientific discourse.…”