Table 2.
Viewpoint characteristics (own illustration)
| No. | Stakeholder | Viewpoint 1 | Viewpoint 2 | Self-perceived former TDR experience |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Univ (sust/td) | 0.7749 | 0.2243 | Yes |
| 2 | Univ (tech/pract) | 0.6850 | 0.2420 | Yes |
| 3 | Univ (sust/td) | 0.7446 | 0.0892 | Yes |
| 4 | Univ (sust/td) | 0.6626 | 0.3312 | No |
| 5 | Univ (sust/td) | 0.7784 | 0.3049 | Yes |
| 6 | Pract1 | 0.3962 | 0.7107 | No |
| 7 | Pract2 | 0.3571 | 0.5885 | Yes |
| 8 | Univ (tech/pract) | 0.1057 | 0.4503 | No |
| 9 | Univ (tech/pract) | 0.0592 | 0.4430 | No |
| 10 | Pract3 | 0.0854 | 0.4996 | Yes |
| 11 | Pract4 | 0.4216 | 0.6957 | Yes |
| 12 | Mod1 | 0.5054 | 0.6479 | Yes |
| 13 | Mod2 | 0.4834 | 0.5552 | No |
| Explained variance (%) | 28 | 23 | ||
The bold numbers show which team member loads significantly on which viewpoint
To be significant at the p < 0.01 level, the factor loading in this study has to be > 0.442. A column was added to show previous experience with TDR based on the self-assessment of TDR members
Univ university, Pract practitioner, Mod moderator, sust/td focus on sustainability and TDR and theory, tech/pract focus on technical science and practical applicability of research, TDR transdisciplinary research