Table 1.
Design principles and guiding questions for transdisciplinary research projects (Lang et al. 2012) adapted to ECOSIMP
| Design principle | Guiding question (Lang et al. 2012) | Adapted to ECOSIMP |
|---|---|---|
| Project phase A | ||
| 1. Build a collaborative research team | Does (did/will) the project team include all relevant expertise, experience, and other relevant ‘stakes’ needed to tackle the sustainability problem in a way that provides solution options and contributes to the related scientific body of knowledge? | Did the project team include all relevant expertise, experience, and other relevant ‘stakes’ needed to increase knowledge and provide the tools for the consideration of ecosystem services in municipal planning and climate adaptation? |
| 2. Create joint understanding and definition of the sustainability problem to be addressed | Does the project team reach a common understanding of the sustainability problem to be addressed and does the team accept a joint definition of the problem? | Did the project team reach a common understanding of the ‘real-world’ sustainability problem to be addressed by the project, and was an explicit definition of this problem formulated and agreed on by all team members? |
| 3. Collaboratively define the boundary/research object, research objectives as well as specific research questions, and success criteria | Is a common research object or guiding question, with subsequent specified research object[ive] and questions, formulated, and does the partners agree on common success criteria? | Did the project members agree on using the ecosystem services concept as a common research object, and were related research aims, questions and success criteria formulated, and agreed on by all team members? |
| 4. Design a methodological framework for collaborative knowledge production and integration | Does the project team agree upon a jointly developed methodological framework that defines how the research target will be pursued in Phase B and what transdisciplinary settings will be employed? Does the framework adequately account for both the collaboration among the scientific fields and with the practice partners? | Did the project team agree upon a jointly developed methodological framework that defined how the research target should be pursued in phase B and what transdisciplinary settings should be employed? Did the project organisation adequately account for both collaboration among scientific fields and how/whether researchers should collaborate with the municipal representatives in between workshops? |
| Project phase B | ||
| 1. Appropriate roles for practitioners and researchers | Are the tasks and roles of the actors from science and practice involved in the research process clearly defined? | Were the tasks and roles of the involved researchers and municipality representatives clearly defined? |
| 2. Apply and adjust integrative research methods and transdisciplinary settings for knowledge generation and integration | Does the research team employ or develop methods suitable to generate solution options for the problem addressed? Does the team employ or develop suitable settings for inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation and knowledge integration? | Did the team employ or develop suitable settings for inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation and knowledge integration? Did the research team employ or develop methods suitable to generate solution options to address the lack of knowledge and tools for consideration of ecosystem services in municipal planning and climate adaptation? |
| Project phase C | ||
| 1. Realize two-dimensional integration | Are the project results implemented to resolve or mitigate the problem addressed? Are the results integrated into the existing scientific body of knowledge for transfer and scaling-up efforts? | Have the project’s results been implemented to resolve or mitigate the lack of knowledge and tools for ecosystem service consideration in municipal planning? Were the results integrated into the existing scientific body of knowledge for transfer and scaling-up efforts? |
| 2. Generate targeted ‘‘products’’ for both parties | Does the research team provide practice partners and scientists with products, publications, services, etc. in an appropriate form and language? | Did ECOSIMP provide Swedish-language tools, guidelines, pamphlets, reports, or other products useful for municipalities? Were peer-reviewed articles, book chapters and conference presentations generated in Swedish and English? |
| 3. Evaluate scientific and societal impact | Are the goals being achieved? What additional (unanticipated) positive effects are being accomplished? | Were the goals achieved? What additional (unanticipated) positive effects were created? |
| Cross-cutting principles (X) | ||
| 1. Facilitate continuous formative evaluation | Is a formative evaluation being conducted involving relevant experts related to the topical field and transdisciplinary research (throughout the project)? | Has formative evaluation been conducted throughout the project, involving relevant experts on the empirical content (ecosystem services, climate adaptation and municipal planning) as well as transdisciplinarity? |
| 2. Mitigate conflict constellations | Do the researchers/practitioners prepare for/anticipate conflict at the outset, and are procedures/processes being adopted for managing conflict as and when it arises? | Did the researchers and municipality representatives prepare for/anticipate conflict at the outset, and were procedures/processes adopted for managing conflict as and when it arose? |
| 3. Enhance capabilities for and interest in participation | Is adequate attention being paid to the (material and intellectual) capabilities that are required for effective and sustained participation in the project over time? | Has adequate attention been paid to the (material and intellectual) capabilities required for effective and sustained participation in the project over time? |