Barriers and Facilitators to Integration among Scientists in Transdisciplinary Landscape Analyses: A Cross-Country Comparison. Jakobsen, C. H., Hels, T., & McLaughlin, W. J. 6(1):15–31.
Barriers and Facilitators to Integration among Scientists in Transdisciplinary Landscape Analyses: A Cross-Country Comparison [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Scientists are increasingly challenged by the call to develop more effective methods for working across disciplines in landscape analysis projects. The aim of this study was to improve our understanding of the barriers and facilitators to integration of perspectives across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Two research projects with similar objectives served as cases. The projects were the assessment phase of the North American Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project and the Danish Boundaries in the Landscape. An inductive research design using qualitative data analysis methods was applied. Data sources included in-depth interviews, observations, and archival documents. Comparison of the two research projects, each conducted in a different western culture, revealed a set of similar barriers to cooperation and integration: individual-based, group-based, group- and individual-based, and organization culture-based boundaries. In three of the four boundary categories, barriers in one project were identified as facilitators in the other project. Furthermore, there were also barriers and facilitators that were only listed in one of the projects. Differences in barriers and facilitators in the two projects may be related to the scope, size, and political context of the projects, as well as the differences in national culture. We conclude the paper with a set of recommendations to scientists working across disciplines in landscape level assessments.
@article{jakobsenBarriersFacilitatorsIntegration2004,
  title = {Barriers and Facilitators to Integration among Scientists in Transdisciplinary Landscape Analyses: A Cross-Country Comparison},
  author = {Jakobsen, Christine H. and Hels, Tove and McLaughlin, William J.},
  date = {2004-01},
  journaltitle = {Forest Policy and Economics},
  volume = {6},
  pages = {15--31},
  issn = {1389-9341},
  doi = {10.1016/s1389-9341(02)00080-1},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00080-1},
  abstract = {Scientists are increasingly challenged by the call to develop more effective methods for working across disciplines in landscape analysis projects. The aim of this study was to improve our understanding of the barriers and facilitators to integration of perspectives across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Two research projects with similar objectives served as cases. The projects were the assessment phase of the North American Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project and the Danish Boundaries in the Landscape. An inductive research design using qualitative data analysis methods was applied. Data sources included in-depth interviews, observations, and archival documents. Comparison of the two research projects, each conducted in a different western culture, revealed a set of similar barriers to cooperation and integration: individual-based, group-based, group- and individual-based, and organization culture-based boundaries. In three of the four boundary categories, barriers in one project were identified as facilitators in the other project. Furthermore, there were also barriers and facilitators that were only listed in one of the projects. Differences in barriers and facilitators in the two projects may be related to the scope, size, and political context of the projects, as well as the differences in national culture. We conclude the paper with a set of recommendations to scientists working across disciplines in landscape level assessments.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-11433623,cooperation,forest-resources,integrated-natural-resources-modelling-and-management,integration-techniques,landscape-modelling,transboundary-effects,transdisciplinary-research},
  number = {1}
}
Downloads: 0