Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Análise de Constelação - Schafer (2016)
Análise de Constelação - Schafer (2016)
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Land use is an important field of interest regarding sustainability transformations. Research projects
Received 16 October 2015 which deal with the multiple dimensions of sustainable land use usually apply an inter- and transdisci-
Received in revised form 21 April 2016 plinary design and are confronted with challenges of integrating heterogeneous knowledge.
Accepted 13 June 2016
In this paper we refer to experience we had during the ELaN project, which followed a systemic
Available online 23 June 2016
approach by linking research on water and land management. Due to this relatively uncommon approach
it was necessary to bring together scientists and practical actors as well as distributed knowledge from
Keywords:
different areas of expertise. Considering the heterogeneity of the actors it was of great importance to
Knowledge integration
Problem framing
establish a shared understanding of the research problem the project was to deal with during the initial
Mutual understanding phase. For this step the method of Constellation Analysis (CA) was applied: a visualisation and analysis
Transdisciplinarity tool which aims at joint problem framing by focusing on the dominant elements of a social-ecological
Interdisciplinarity problem and their relations in a discursive process. Due to the size of the project team and the necessity
Sustainable land use to involve a broad range of actors, a group of scientists led the iterative process and prepared CA drafts
Land management which were validated by practitioners. This design can be categorised as ‘consulting’ rather than ‘par-
Fenlands ticipatory’ transdisciplinarity. Proceeding this way can be seen as a compromise between more intense
Constellation Analysis
forms of transdisciplinary exchange and forms that are manageable when considering time and resource
constraints in third-party funded projects.
CA has proven to be a suitable tool for organising processes of mutual understanding between hetero-
geneous actors and fostering social integration in inter- and transdisciplinary research groups. In ELaN the
main benefit of the process was an adjustment and enrichment of problem framing which was formulated
in the project proposal thus contributing to integrated system knowledge as a basis for the interdisci-
plinary project consortium and involved practitioners. The insights gained during this process led to
changes in the design of some of the sub-projects as well as the targeted end products. This experience
confirms the importance of a structured process of joint problem framing in inter- and transdisciplinary
projects, especially for thematic fields of such high complexity as land use research.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction production (food and non-food), space for recreation and the provi-
sion of ecosystem services, are being greatly threatened by current
Land use research exemplifies the challenges that have arisen trends such as climate change, globalisation, demographic changes
from the sustainability paradigm. While monitoring and modelling and energy politics (Pérez-Soba et al., 2008; Zscheischler and Rogga,
of the ecological impacts of land cover change prevailed in the past, 2015). To be able to deal with these complex and uncertain socio-
currently, a more integrative understanding that moves beyond ecological problems and challenges usually demands an inter-
the limits of disciplinary knowledge and sectoral perspectives is and transdisciplinary research design that enables integration of
being pursued (Zscheischler and Rogga, 2015). Land is central in knowledge from different disciplines as well as experience from
human-nature interactions. But its functions, such as land-based practice. This so called “mode 2” research supplements the tra-
ditional disciplinary “mode 1” research and implies that socially
robust knowledge for solving socially caused, complex problems
∗ Corresponding author. is increasingly being co-produced by scientific researchers, pol-
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Schäfer). icy makers, stakeholders and private actors (Brand, 2000; Gibbons
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.013
0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539 527
et al., 1994; Hinkel, 2008; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008; Tress et al., of system knowledge and gives an impression of the range of dif-
2006; Tress et al., 2007). ferent perspectives involved, seems to be an ideal starting point
In general, transdisciplinarity is a particular type of co- for a transdisciplinary research process (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn,
production of knowledge which is able to contextualize scientific 2008b). Tress et al. (2007) refer to the main barriers for knowledge
and real world knowledge (Scholz et al., 2000: 478) by ideally integration in land use research and identify joint problem formu-
producing three types of knowledge: system, target and transfor- lation as a crucial step for integrative research. Jahn et al. (2012:
mation knowledge (ProClim, 1997: 15). While a commonly shared 5) point out that arriving at a shared understanding of a problem
definition of transdisciplinarity is still lacking, some aspects of in a reflexive, methodically-guided process is the only way that
research practice can be seen as common ground: transdisciplinary (diverging) expectations among participants (both from science
research deals with complex real-world or societal problems and it and society) regarding desired research outcomes can be managed
is conducted in cooperation between scientific research and soci- successfully.
ety, which are ideally envisioned as being enabled to mutually learn This paper seeks to take up the gap in the literature regard-
from each other (Jahn et al., 2012; Scholz et al., 2000; Zierhofer and ing how processes of knowledge and social integration can be
Burger, 2007; Zscheischler and Rogga, 2015). Integration can be facilitated by applying specific methods and to reflect upon the
seen as one of the most important challenges of transdisciplinary potentials and difficulties of such endeavours. It focuses on the first
endeavours, as due to their very nature, such projects have to cope step of structuring real-world problems within interdisciplinary
with thematic as well as problem- or product-oriented integration and transdisciplinary cooperation. We refer here to experiences
of knowledge and social integration of scientists and practitioners we had during the ELaN2 project, which dealt with questions
(Bergmann et al., 2012; Hinkel, 2008; Scholz et al., 2000; Zierhofer of integrated water and land management. To obtain a problem
and Burger, 2007). The involved scientific and practical experts usu- formulation which could be shared by the scientific and prac-
ally are driven by different rationalities and logics of action and tical partners involved, Constellation Analysis (CA) was applied.
locate problems in their particular “world of relevance” (Limoges CA is a visualisation and analysis tool which facilitates dialogue
1993). Scavarda et al. (2006) point out that every expert has his or between actors with different backgrounds. Feedback regarding
her own mental causal map, representing his or her beliefs about the difficulties and benefits of this process was obtained by work-
the causes of a problem, its main drivers and possible solutions. This shop evaluation via questionnaires and qualitative interviews with
diversity in perspectives must be taken into account while identi- participants, thus allowing reflection on the added value of this
fying and structuring a problem and while developing and testing methodological step.
means to deal with it. Several authors agree that the first step in The paper is structured as follows: After a brief introduction of
mutual learning and integration is to acknowledge the diversity of the ELaN project (Section 2) and the CA method (Section 3), the
perspectives and to explore and clarify their differences (Giri, 2002; results of carrying out CA during the project are presented (Section
Loibl, 2006; Tress et al., 2006; Schäfer et al., 2010). 4). Section 5 discusses the suitability of the method for knowl-
Both knowledge integration and mutual learning often occur edge integration and the quality of the transdisciplinary process.
more or less implicitly in the process of inter- and transdisciplinary The paper closes with conclusions for inter- and transdisciplinary
research projects. Usually it is taken for granted by funding agen- research processes as well as for sustainable land use research (Sec-
cies as well as researchers involved in such projects. Zierhofer tion 6).
and Burger (2007) conclude from an evaluation of 16 inter- and
transdisciplinary projects that problem oriented integration of dif-
2. The ELaN project: sustainable land management in
ferent knowledge is rarely approached systematically and often is
Northeastern Germany
not even recognized as a methodological challenge. Truffer (2007)
and Hunecke (2011) point out that knowledge integration is more
ELaN combined two thematic areas which have thus far rarely
than simply a technical or organisational problem but is also an
been dealt with together: water and nutrient management, on one
active social process of negotiation and construction which has
side, and land use on the other. In doing so it sought to take up the
to be planned, designed and organized in an active manner and
challenge of adopting a systemic view on sustainable land use in
with appropriate methods. Several authors agree that a broad and
the face of climate change. One of the main strands of the project
coherent debate on the methodology of integrated knowledge pro-
was examining the current German practice of discharging treated
duction is still lacking (Bergmann et al., 2012; Defila and Di Giulio,
waste water into rivers and surface water, which has negative con-
2015), although a number of compilations of methods of integra-
sequences in terms of regional loss of water and nutrients as well
tion have been produced during the last years (Niederberger and
as eutrophication of rivers and oceans. As part of ELaN, scientists
Wassermann, 2014; Bammer, 2013; Bergmann et al., 2012).
from a variety of disciplines (e.g. hydrology, soil science, limnol-
Various authors have pointed out that inter- and transdisci-
ogy, agriculture, regional planning, sociology, economy, political
plinary research projects should aim at knowledge integration
science) were investigating whether the use of treated waste water
from the very beginning and throughout the entire research pro-
has the potential to serve as one element of sustainable water and
cess (Bergmann et al., 2012; Lang et al., 2012). Ideally, within
land use management. A central question was to estimate the risks
the initial phase of a project, the leading questions and common
of using treated waste water for irrigation of specific sites with
research goals should be defined and a shared view about the sys-
regard to the subsequent quality of the soil and ground water. Par-
tem and its dynamics generated so that the various participants
allel to exploring different options of water management, land use
can focus on “one and the same problem and [. . .] synthesize the
options adapted to different ground water levels were also ana-
information sampled in an effective manner” (Scholz, 2000: 16).
lysed. These investigations were embedded within consideration of
Joint problem framing,1 which integrates complementary aspects
2
The ELaN project – Entwicklung eines integrierten Landmanagements durch
1
The terms problem framing (Rossini 2009), problem structuring (Scholz et al., nachhaltige Wasser- und Stoffnutzung in Nord-Ostdeutschland (Developing an
2009; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2008a,b) and problem formulation (Bergmann et al., integrated land management scheme for sustainable water and nutrients use in
2005) are used with a rather similar meaning in the literature on transdisciplinary Northeastern Germany) – was funded from 2011 to 2015 by the German Federal
research processes. ‘Joint’ and ‘shared’ problem framing are also used as synonymous Ministry for Education and Research. For further information see: <www.elan-bb.
terms. de>.
528 M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539
current legal, institutional and political framework conditions, with administration in water management and regional planning, an
the objective of formulating recommendations for adapted gover- entrepreneur in energy consulting, representatives of waste water
nance measures. The potential of using treated waste water was treatment plants) was consulted regularly to discuss intermedi-
investigated at two sites in Northeastern Germany: areas which ate results and integrate the specific knowledge and experiences
were formerly used as sewage farms in the outskirts of Berlin and of these actors. At certain points in the project, a wider range of
(degenerated) fenlands in rural areas of Brandenburg. These sites practitioners was integrated via stakeholder workshops in order to
were chosen since they enabled dealing with different facets of present elements of regional strategies for sustainable water and
integrated water and land management as well as connected ques- land management and obtain feedback regarding the suggestions.
tions of economic valorisation and legal restrictions. These workshops were complemented by bilateral consultations
ELaN comprised an interdisciplinary team of 12 institutional with experts in certain fields. The participation of scientists and
partners and approximately 45 scientists from different disci- practitioners in the methodological step of applying CA for joint
plinary backgrounds.3 It was structured in four thematic sub areas problem framing will be described in detail in Section 3.2.
(water and nutrient flows, land use, socio-economic governance
and knowledge integration) and 14 subprojects and was coordi-
3. Methods for facilitating and reflecting upon inter- and
nated by a team of five scientists who represented each of the four
transdisciplinary exchange
subareas. One of the 14 subprojects was responsible for support-
ing and reflecting upon the inter- and transdisciplinary exchanges
This section introduces the Constellation Analysis method,
that occurred throughout the whole research process. The authors
which was applied in ELaN to achieve joint problem framing Sec-
of the present paper were responsible for this subproject.
tion (3.1), describes the involvement of scientists and practitioners
The choice of the overall research topic and formulation of the
in carrying out CA Section (3.2) and explicates the methods which
proposal for the project were based on prior interaction between
were used to reflect upon the process of inter- and transdisciplinary
researchers and practitioners. After the phase of joint problem
exchange in this phase of the project Section (3.3).
framing, the 14 subprojects worked on different research ques-
tions in the four subareas. The results were integrated into several
synthesis products which addressed different target groups: (a) 3.1. Constellation analysis
an administrative manual with recommendations regarding risk
assessment for the use of treated waste water, (b) a decision sup- 3.1.1. Methodological background of Constellation Analysis
port system for farmers containing a variety of land use options Constellation analysis (CA) is a methodological approach that
depending on different groundwater levels, (c) scenarios for land has been designed to cope with complex situations requiring inter-
use options depending on different framework conditions and (d) disciplinary cooperation and transdisciplinary solutions. It is a
governance recommendations for sustainable water and land use ‘middle range’ concept for bridging different areas of expertise
options. Additionally, the main results of the project were sum- inside or outside of a scientific field and supporting mutual under-
marised in 11 core statements. Most of the synthesis products, such standing (Schön et al., 2007). The development of CA was inspired
as the manual, the scenarios and the governance recommendations, by Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Actor-Network Theory
mainly aimed at providing different target groups with integrated (ANT), both of which stress the importance of dealing with hetero-
system knowledge as a basis for decision making. These three geneous elements like human actors, technology, signs and natural
products also contributed towards generating target knowledge by elements equally, implying that none of the elements per se can
reflecting upon, for example, questions of risk management (e.g. claim priority (Latour, 1987; Callon et al., 1986). The central the-
weighting the risk of polluting surface waters versus pollution of sis of Actor-Network Theory is that science and technology evolve
soil and groundwater) or principles of land management (adapting as a result of linking such heterogeneous elements in networks.
soils to intensive agriculture with the aim of economic optimisa- Technical artefacts as well as social actors, norms and institutions
tion versus adapting land use to natural conditions). The decision are understood as being the subjects and results of interdepen-
support system aimed at providing target and transformational dent relations in networks and are dealt with as having (potential)
knowledge by supporting farmers in their decisions regarding land agency (Ohlhorst, 2009). CA takes up the idea of “distributed action”
use options that could be adapted to the high groundwater levels (Rammert, 2003) and attempts to map hetereogenous or hybrid
of fenland areas.4 constellations. In the mapping process, differences between social
This paper focuses on the first project phase of joint problem actors, technical elements, natural elements and conceptual and
framing. This methodological step aimed at integrating distributed communicative elements (or ‘systems of signs’) are highlighted,
knowledge about the challenges of water and land management but there are no a priori decisions made about their relevance for a
at the two different sites and structuring the various perspectives particular issue (Kruse, 2008: 49).
among the group of scientists as well as of different groups of prac- Constellation Analysis combines the following aspects: (1)
titioners. The process of joint problem framing was meant to be structured sampling of all elements that are relevant for a given
the starting point for mutual understanding between these dif- issue, (2) visualisation of how these elements relate and, based
ferent perspectives and to establish a common basis for further on the latter, (3) a thorough analysis in written form. This map-
cooperation. ping process results from a discursive process between actors with
Practitioners were involved in the project in different ways different backgrounds regarding what they see as the most appro-
and at varying levels of intensity. An advisory board with eleven priate way to represent reality (Ohlhorst, 2009).
practitioners from different backgrounds (e.g. representatives Discursive elements and visualisation are also part of other
of agricultural and nature protection associations, experts from methods which are used for knowledge integration. Discussion
among experts is seen as a basic means to “arrive at a shared
problem framing” (Defila and Di Giulio, 2015: 125). Integrating
knowledge implies more than simply sampling facts but also an
3
ELaN was financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research appreciation of different epistemologies and their underlying val-
(BMBF) between 2011 and 2015 in the program “Sustainable Land Management”.
More information www.elan-bb.de.
ues, interests and worldviews (McDonald et al., 2009). McDonald
4
More information on the results of the different sub areas and synthesis products et al. (2009) describe several methods and techniques which aim
can be found at www.elan-bb.de. at supporting dialogue between participants engaged in transdis-
M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539 529
ciplinary research, such as consensus conferences, the Delphi and (b) integration of results, (c) analysis of governance of processes,
nominal group techniques, but most of these lack some form of (d) developing strategies (Schön et al., 2007: 15). Depending on
visualisation. Experience with CA shows that visualisation facil- the main objective CA is applied for, there might be different logics
itates the discussion process and allows actors with different for selecting the most important elements of a certain constella-
backgrounds to better relate to certain aspects of a problem (Kruse, tion and, subsequently, visualisation of relations between them.
2008: 48). Misunderstandings can be identified and – in the pro- In ELaN, CA was used to integrate distributed knowledge on chal-
cess of attaining a shared understanding – complex interrelations lenges of water and land management for the two chosen sites
can be illustrated using different variations (Ohlhorst, 2009). On (fenlands and former sewage fields) and, therefore, also served
the other hand, the trap of simplification can also be better avoided the purpose of explicating different perspectives and enhancing
by combining visualisation with a written analysis. mutual understanding between them. The process of carrying out
CA during the ELaN project is described in the following section.
3.1.2. Basic elements and methodological steps for carrying out
CA 3.2. Applying Constellation Analysis in ELaN
The nucleus of each CA is the visualisation of a specific con-
stellation constituted by various interrelated elements and having The joint problem framing process undertaken for the ELaN
a certain degree of regularity and structure. The tool used for the project, achieved via Constellation Analysis, complemented and
ELaN project was based on four types of elements (see Fig. 1, Schön more precisely defined assumptions initially formulated in the
et al., 2007:18–20): project proposal. But here, all participating researchers were
systematically involved in generating the updated problem formu-
• natural elements (e.g. landscape, livestock, soil, ground water), lation, not only those who took part in writing the project proposal.
• technical elements (e.g. energy, factories, infrastructure), This seemed especially important, since the project relied on coop-
• systems of signs (e.g. rules, laws, concepts and principles)5 and, eration between scientists from various disciplines – including
• social actors (e.g. persons, groups, organisations). hydrologists, regional planners, biologists and economists – who
had thus far rarely worked together. Thus, the process of updat-
Some of the elements were related. The following symbols are ing problem framing also served the purpose of social integration
provided in the CA handbook to characterise such relations Schön within the group of approximately 45 scientists during the first
et al. (2007): year.
With regard to relevant practitioners, the project drew on exper-
• Single relation: Elements are related. tise from very different fields, such as ground water protection,
• Directional relation: One element has an impact on one other or waste water treatment, water management, agriculture and pro-
several other elements. duction of bioenergy, whose actors had previously had little or no
• Conflicting relation: One element is in conflict with one or several contact with each other in their professional routines. In contrast
other elements. to other projects, where the antagonists and their positions regard-
• Hampered relation: One element passively resists one or several ing certain topics are well known, this was less the case in ELaN,
other elements. since the aspect of using treated waste water as element of sus-
• Feedback relation: Two elements are in a relation with mutual tainable land use had rarely been dealt with beforehand. Each of
self-reinforcement. the participating practitioners had previously been able to describe
in detail part of the problem – eutrophication of surface waters,
Constellations usually are built from the center putting the most degeneration of fenlands, or rising costs of waste water treatment
important elements on a ring. Elements which are grouped besides – but would not necessarily have linked this part to other relevant
each other in ‘clusters’ are considered to be closely related. If it aspects. To foster especially exchange between actors from water
is helpful to understand a constellation, relational symbols can be and land management was, therefore, an important objective of the
used to further characterise certain relations (e.g. conflicts or self- project as a whole, starting with joint problem framing.
enforcing relations). The symbols can also be used to point out Joint problem framing was done separately for the two sites
relations between elements of different clusters. The basic idea ELaN was dealing with: former sewage-irrigated fields and (degen-
of CA is to bring together different approaches, data sources (lit- erated) fenlands. In this article we only refer to one of these, as the
erature searches, interviews, discussion) and forms of knowledge iterative methodological steps were the same for both analyses. To
(scientific and practical) to create an image consisting of a constel- get an idea about the content changes occurring during the process
lation that can be accepted or even shared by all practitioners and of joint problem framing, this article describes the carrying out of
researchers involved (Bruns and Ohlhorst, 2011). In cases where CA for water and land management of fenlands. Within the scope
it is not possible to reach agreement on such a constellation, the of this article, however, it is not possible to elaborate a complete
method can also be helpful for identifying conflicting perspectives analysis of the constellation (see Kröger et al., 2012). Insights and
at an early stage of a project. Here, dissent should be documented conclusions regarding the challenges and the added value of this
and the project team should agree on the existence of conflicting process are identical for both analyses, since the methodological
perspectives (Schön et al., 2007: 23). design was the same.
There are several possible ways in which CA can be developed, Joint problem framing was accomplished on the basis of a vari-
depending on the size of the group and available time resources: (a) ety of different methods, employed via a number of recursive steps,
the whole team passes through all the steps of CA as a group, (b) part in the period between April 2011 and May 2012. As a first step, a
of the team prepares maps to discuss them with the whole team, review of the relevant literature and interviews with 17 experts
(c) single members of the team prepare maps and discuss them from research and practice were carried out. The group of prac-
with other team members (Schön et al., 2007: 21). CA can also be titioners comprised three representatives of administrative units
used for various purposes: (a) structuring multiple perspectives, (water and land authorities), three representatives of water or agri-
cultural associations, two representatives of environmental NGOs,
one local politician, one entrepreneur in the field of bioenergy
5
Some authors who have been applying CA by using the term ‘conceptual and production and one landscape planner. The aim of the interviews
communicative elements’ for these types of elements (Kruse 2008:49). was to deepen knowledge about the related topics and to identify
530 M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539
l
• l
natural elements Systems of social actors
technical elements
signs
single relation directional relation conflictual relation hampered relation feedback relation
Fig. 1. Types of elements and relations of Constellation Analysis (source: Schäfer et al., 2010: 120).
Table 1
Inter- and transdisciplinary exchange for joint problem framing in ELaN.
and correlate the relevant elements of the specific ELaN constel- and discussed at the annual meeting of the consortium, consisting
lations. The interviews lasted between 45 and 90 min. They were altogether of 47 persons. After presentation to the whole consor-
transcribed and analysed according to the four types of elements tium, they were discussed in two sub groups of participants, sorted
mentioned above and their interrelations. Based on the literature according to their being involved with one the two sites. These
review and interviews, a first draft of the graphic representation of discussions were recorded. Suggested changes regarding the most
the constellation was created by the group of scientists who were important elements and their relations were visualised directly in
responsible for the subproject of knowledge integration. Table 1 the meeting by adding additional cards and symbols. The comments
gives an overview of the subsequent steps of developing CA for were analysed thoroughly after the workshop by members of the
joint problem framing. responsible subproject. After revision, the whole consortium was
The first drafts of the graphic representations of the constella- asked to comment on the revised problem framing for the two sites
tions for each site were discussed within the ELaN coordination in case there were further suggestions. The figures and the written
team and with a number of ELaN researchers from different disci- analyses were distributed via mail with a deadline of two weeks
plinary backgrounds. After this internal feedback, the figures were for commentary. Ten researchers of the consortium sent back com-
revised and written analyses about characteristics of the constel- ments which were then analysed and taken into consideration
lations and challenges with regard to sustainable water and land during the final revision.
management at the two sites were formulated by the responsi- In the next step, CA for joint problem framing was presented and
ble subproject. The two constellation analyses then were presented discussed at a transdisciplinary stakeholder workshop, the aim of
M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539 531
which was to discuss the findings with a greater number of regional the position of other discussion partners this was viewed as an
actors who had up to then only been loosely or not yet associated indicator for ‘mutual understanding’. Mutual learning was opera-
with ELaN. 43 practitioners participated at the workshop, including tionalised as a self-reported change of one’s own mind set, resulting
representatives from local, regional or national government admin- in, for example, adjustment of research questions or adapted use of
istrations, employees of the Berlin forestry and natural preserves certain terms.
services, representatives of water and agricultural associations and After the consortium meeting, a questionnaire was distributed
sewerage boards as well as members of environmental NGOs. Farm- to all participants, of which 38 out of 47 responded (81%).
ers, consulting engineers and landscape planners were also present The questionnaire contained several questions addressing the
but to a lesser extent. appropriateness of the method and whether joint problem fram-
The workshop was structured as follows: After presenting the ing succeeded in motivating processes of mutual exchange and
constellation analyses for the two sites in a plenary session, the understanding (see Section 4.3). Participants were also asked for
participants were designated to two working groups according to additional remarks with two open questions:
their expertise in terms of the two land use types the project dealt
with (fenlands and former sewage fields). The discussion in each • What was the main benefit of the consortium meeting for your
working group (duration one hour) was stimulated by two 10-min subproject?
inputs from practitioners who had been selected in the course of • Do you have additional remarks or comments, even regarding the
preparing the workshop.6 These discussions were moderated and organisation of the event?
documented by the project team. The participants were asked to
comment on problem framing on the basis of CA (the figure was In the days after the consortium meeting, the responsible sub-
distributed to all participants at the workshop) and, more generally, project carried out six telephone interviews to obtain further
to discuss the following questions: feedback on the process of joint problem framing using the CA
method. Researchers from every sub area were represented in the
- What could be potential benefits for the region from using treated sample. The interviews lasted 15–30 min and were recorded and
waste water? transcribed afterwards.
- What questions need to be answered before considering the use After the stakeholder workshop, a brief questionnaire was also
of treated waste water? distributed, which contained several questions regarding the rel-
evance of CA for practitioners and the quality of the exchange
The workshop ended with a plenary session discussing the between researchers and practical actors (see Section 4.3). Since
potentials and risks of using treated waste water on the two sites several participants had left during the last 30 min of the event,
and practitioners’ expectations regarding the project. feedback was only obtained from 17 of 43 participants (40%).
Eight of eleven members of the advisory board took part in the
workshop. After the stakeholder workshop, there was a supple-
4. CA as the basis for joint problem framing for
mentary 2.5-h meeting with the advisory board to discuss some
management of fenlands
of the issues in more detail. In preparation for this meeting, the
members were provided with the figures and the accompanying
In this section, the results of carrying out CA for challenges
text of the CA, giving them a chance to comment on them. The
regarding water and land management on fenlands will be very
comments of the stakeholder workshop and the advisory board
briefly introduced Section (4.1) before the contributions of the prac-
meeting were documented and taken into account for a last revision
titioners to the problem description are presented in more detail
of the CA, which was conducted after the workshop by the respon-
in Section 4.2.
sible team of scientists. Two months later, the formulation of joint
problem framing on the basis of CA was finalised and subsequently
published (Kröger et al., 2012). 4.1. Problem framing for management of fenlands
Fig. 2. Constellation Analysis for water and land management of rural fenlands.
contains nutrients and pollutants, the surface water as well as the protection and for maintaining sound regional water balance as
North and the Baltic seas have become polluted over time, result- well as biodiversity. On the other hand, pressure on the agricul-
ing in problems of eutrophication. To avoid further contamination, tural sector to use land as efficiently as possible has risen due to
the EU Water Framework Directive demands that all EU countries economic and political trends. In the long run, the melioration of
improve surface water quality towards attaining a higher standard. soils and intensive forms of production will result in gradual dete-
It is, consequently, expected that standards for treated waste water rioration of soils, which is also economically unattractive. The main
quality will also rise during the coming years. challenge is to provide economically viable options for farmers to
Cluster 3, “waste water”, consists of the relevant elements cultivate land with higher ground water levels. The establishment
related to current treatment of waste water in Northeastern of regional value-added chains for crops produced on fenlands as
Germany. Due to migration into cities and other demographic well as public compensation schemes for less intensive production
changes, associations for sewage treatment in rural areas are will be key elements for finding acceptable solutions for all actors
faced with increasing costs for an oversized waste water treat- involved.
ment infrastructure. They are also irregularly confronted with huge The special focus of the ELaN project regarding this constellation
amounts of waste water caused by extreme weather events, which was to analyse whether the use of treated waste water for irrigating
cannot be dealt with adequately by current waste water treatment fenlands could be a feasible component of a possible solution for
plants. the sketched problems of water and land use management. To date,
After the mapping process, the constellation was analysed, the use of treated waste water has been forbidden, due to precau-
revealing competing interests or problems that have to be dealt tionary ground water protection, and can only be tested within the
with in the future. The quality of treated waste water has to improve context of a research project. By using treated waste water for irri-
to be able to fulfill the standards of the EU Water Framework gating land, however, it could be possible to solve the problem of
Directive. However, in rural areas waste water treatment plants polluting surface water. It is assumed that remaining nutrients and
are already confronted with the problem of maintaining existing pollutants will be removed by microorganisms and plants when
infrastructure and lack the financial leeway for new investments. the water passes through fenland soil. However, the effects of long-
Regarding water management, there is a clear conflict between term irrigation of sensitive soils with treated waste water have not
the interests of agriculture and those of environmental protec- yet been analysed sufficiently.
tion. A high percentage of fenland is already severely degenerated On the micro level, CA made clear that heterogeneous elements
due to water management practices which allow intensive agricul- are interacting and forming the constellation of water and land
tural production. During the last decade, there has been growing management on fenlands. The current practices for dealing with
recognition that the existence of fenlands is important for climate treated waste water are strongly influenced by a regulation which
M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539 533
– following a precautionary logic – puts limitations on gaining the potential of using treated waste water is that many degener-
experience with innovative forms of water management. Research ated fenland areas are not located near sewage treatment plants
projects which contribute towards the assessment of risks and ben- and that the transport of waste water via pipes is very expensive.
efits of different water and land management options (symbolised These comments were taken up in structuring the two different
by the element ‘knowledge’) play an important role as ‘experi- constellations: while “treated waste water” was put in the centre of
mental sites’. Besides regulation, material elements like size and the CA of former sewage farms, “water management” was chosen
design of waste water treatment plants as well as the current shape as the most important element at the centre of the constellation
of the existing melioration infrastructure also play a very impor- analysis for fenland areas (Kröger et al., 2012). Through the itera-
tant role for the constellation. Infrastructure is designed for long tive process problem framing, the element “treated waste water”
time periods (path dependency) and can only be modified within lost importance in the fenland constellation, as shown in Fig. 3.
certain windows of opportunity when facilities have to be refur- This point was discussed intensely at the annual meeting of the
bished or renewed. Meanwhile, forms of land use can be altered project team. Especially the practical project partner – the waste
within shorter time cycles, as they depend to a large extent on the water treatment company – was at first arguing in favor of keeping
global agricultural market and corresponding national regulations. ‘treated waste water’ at the center of the constellation, since the
The existence of self-enhancing mechanisms stresses the stabil- possible use of treated waste water reflected its main interest in
ity of parts of the current constellation. This analysis confirms the the project. Exchange of perspectives on the matter resulted in an
complex socio-ecological interdependencies which are typical for agreement regarding the general differences of the constellations
sustainability problems, as it is not possible to identify one major for the two sites. This change of priorities resulted in a shift in the
actor, one central regulation or one single technology which needs scientific subprojects which were dealing with new land manage-
to be addressed in order to substantially change the constellation ment options on fenlands. They then focused on land use options
(Fig. 2). for areas with higher ground water levels, independent of whether
On the macro level two competing logics of action were iden- these higher ground water levels were based on different water
tified which influence the constellation. While administrators and management approaches or due to irrigation with treated waste
actors from nature protection are guided by a logic of “guarantee- water.
ing public goods and services”, farmers are acting according to an The interviews with practitioners also made clear that water
economic logic with the components of efficiency and profit ori- and soil associations are important players in the field of interest,
entation. Organisations such as drinking water and waste water as they operate at the interface of water and land management.
treatment companies also primarily follow an economic logic. This element was, thus, added to the core of the constellation.
However, since it is their responsibility to assure high water quality,
they need to act within a narrow framework defined by the logic 4.2.2. Enrichment of the problem description
of caring for a public good. For development of strategies towards The practitioners contributed many comments which led to a
sustainable water and land use options, it is important to be able more complete problem description. These were mostly integrated
to bridge these different logics of action (see in more detail Kröger into the written version of the CA. For example, some practitioners
et al., 2012). commented that, under the current regulations, there are diverse
contradictions in dealing with risks to ground water quality. For
4.2. Integration of practitioner knowledge in problem framing instance, although the use of treated waste water is controlled by
very strict regulations, the same standards are not applied for the
In the following section we characterize the input and com- use of sewage sludge or liquid manure on agricultural fields.
ments of the practitioners involved in order to build an impression One example of how the comments from practitioners led to
regarding their contributions towards structuring, enriching and an enrichment of the constellation is shown in Fig. 4. Practitioners,
differentiating the problem framing. who were familiar with the agricultural situation in East Germany,
stressed that individual farmers often have limited leeway to decide
4.2.1. Structure of the constellation between land use options if they have leased the land being used.
One of the central aspects of mapping a constellation is the deci- ‘Land owners’ were therefore integrated as a new element, symbol-
sion regarding the most important elements which are put in the ising their relevance for changes in land management. It was also
center of the constellation as a ‘core’. The original ELaN project pointed out that, besides energy politics, the agricultural market
proposal stressed the potential of using treated waste water for as a whole and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) have major
innovative water management on both sites. In the expert inter- influences on the economic viability of land management options.
views with representatives of the water and soil association and After discussing their importance, these elements were thus also
actors from natural protection, however, it became clear that the integrated into the constellation.
use of treated waste water is not a very important issue in remote
rural areas of Brandenburg but, rather, that the project should take 4.2.3. Differentiation of perspectives regarding the constellation
up the question of water management as a whole. To be able to The discussions with practitioners also resulted in the identifica-
understand this point it is important to know that water man- tion of different perspectives on central issues of the project, which
agement and melioration was organised by the state under the provided important clues regarding starting points for strategies
Germand Democratic Republic (GDR). Since German unification in towards sustainable water and land management and were inte-
1990, responsibility for maintaining the melioration infrastructure grated into the written analyses of CA (Kröger et al., 2012). For this
as well as for water management has never been clearly assigned paper, we have chosen to sketch out three of these important issues.
between the local communities, the water and soil associations and
landowners. The issue is difficult to handle, since substantial costs • Differentiation of risk perception: One of the project goals, as stated
are related to these tasks. That is why there is discontent with the in the project proposal, was to gain more knowledge on the risks
current water management system from both sides: farmers as well of using treated waste water for land use. Especially the waste
as proponents of nature protection. The possible use of treated water treatment company and the responsible administrators
waste water to confront water scarcity in remote rural areas is were interested in a thorough monitoring of nutrients and syn-
only a minor point when considering the whole range of problems thetic substances which could endanger the quality of ground
related to water management. One major problem which reduces water. During the process of attaining a shared understanding of
534 M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539
surface
waters climate
fens
change
treated waste water soil
water availability drainage
intensive
agriculture
Initial draft of the constellation core for fenlands based on the proposal
surface
waters
Water and Soil
Associations
fens
precipitation
Fig. 3. Changing the constellation core of the fenland CA in the process of problem framing.
CAP
agricultural
energy markets
policy
energy land owners
degradation
farmers degradation policy
farmers
intensive
agriculture agriculture
soil
drainage soil
drainage
First draft of part of the constellation based on Final draft of this part of the constellation
interviews (November 2011) (May 2012)
the problem, it became obvious that different understandings of protection regarding the question of to what extent the ground
risk assessment and dealing with risks were present within the water level of fenland areas has to be adapted to the needs of
group of scientific researchers as well as in the group of involved agricultural use. The antagonistic positions “human land use has
practitioners. Some of the participants stressed the precaution- to be adapted to natural conditions” versus “natural conditions
ary principle of protecting ground water from human impacts, have to be adapted to the requirements of human land use” can
which is the basis of current legal regulations. According to this be identified. However, in the interviews and during the stake-
principle, the use of waste water can only be permitted if risks for holder workshop it became clear that there are protagonists of
ground water quality can be completely excluded. Others pointed both actor groups who are open to more nuanced views. On the
out that, considering the number of new synthetic substances one hand, there are actors in the field of nature protection who
which are constantly being released on the market, it would not recognise that protection of biotopes and natural reserves can
be possible to do risk assessments on the basis of single-substance only be ensured in cooperation with those actors who cultivate
monitoring. If it is additionally taken into account that surface the land. The relatively new slogan “Protection by Cultivation” of
water and ground water are interconnected systems, the cur- some environmental organisations indicates that there is a shift
rent practice of disposing treated waste water into rivers also away from the previous paradigm that nature protection is best
presents a risk for ground water quality in the long run. Represen- accomplished by no human use at all. On the other hand, there are
tatives of the second group stressed the necessity for integrated farmers who recognise that soil quality in the area has been dete-
risk assessment, comparing benefits and risks for different water riorating severely with the currently implemented melioration
management options, and dealing with the complete system of regime, which already limits forms of intensive cultivation and
surface and ground water instead of focusing on only one of them. results – or will result – in economic losses. The interviews and
• Differentiation of positions on land use: As described above, there is discussions made these nuanced views visible and showed that
a general conflict between farmers and actors promoting nature
M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539 535
there is a leeway for compromise between certain protagonists already enough research on this topic while practical actions were
of the two actor groups. lacking. The graphic representation of the topic was evaluated as
• Differentiation of positions on water management: At the begin- being helpful for understanding problem framing. From the feed-
ning, it was assumed by the project team that NGOs in the field of back regarding the workshop it can be concluded that it served well
nature or environmental protection would be in favor of demoli- the purpose of introducing the project to a broader range of practi-
tion of the melioration infrastructure while the farmers voted for tioners and succeeded in creating an atmosphere of mutual respect
maintaining – and partly reconstructing – those facilities. In the and openness for further exchange.
course of the interviews and the workshop, it became clearer that The event was also important for researchers within the project,
some of the environmentalists also did not think that a complete as articulated by the following comment: “Interesting was the reac-
demolition of the water management infrastructure would serve tion of the different people who are dealing with this topic. How they
the interests of nature protection best. Even if they wanted to alter react to the question of using treated waste water for land use and how
priorities in water management – taking the arguments of nature they position themselves.”
and environmental protection more into account – they acknowl-
edged that it would not be possible to go “back to nature” by
5. Reflecting on the process of knowledge integration
resigning completely from human water and land management.
during problem framing using Constellation Analysis
An active form of water management depending on functioning
infrastructure would, therefore, appear to be a common point of
In this section, the process of inter- and transdisciplinary knowl-
interest for a broad range of actors.
edge integration in joint problem framing using Constellation
Analysis will be discussed. Section 5.1 reflects upon the use of Con-
These examples are intended here to show how practitioner
stellation Analysis for the process of generating system knowledge
knowledge was integrated into joint problem framing facilitated
in land use research, while Section 5.2 discusses the quality of the
by use of CA in different ways.
transdisciplinary design in this phase.
4.3. Evaluation of the inter- and transdisciplinary exchange
process 5.1. Suitability of Constellation Analysis for problem framing and
mutual understanding
Evaluation of the consortium meeting with a brief questionnaire
indicates that the event served the purpose of motivating exchange As described above, the activities in the first phase of the project
quite well, resulting in a better understanding for each other’s per- had the objective of bringing together knowledge and perspectives
spectives, as well as regarding the overall context of the project (see from different disciplines as well as from practitioners from differ-
Table 2). The idea of embedding one’s own research questions into ent fields. This seemed especially necessary since the two strands
a broader context was also stressed in the interviews, as the follow- – water and land management – had thus far not often been dealt
ing statements make clear: “It was helpful to see all the aspects which with in an integrated way. Besides the generation of system knowl-
one doesn’t always have in mind together in one picture.” “For me, as a edge as a basis for disciplinary work within the ELaN research team,
hydrogologist who works within a quite narrow range, it was interest- the process of coming to a shared understanding of the problem also
ing to see all the other perspectives. Up to now I hadn’t approached the had the objective of contributing towards social integration of the
project with an overall picture but rather only with my own detailed different partners.
research question.” Discussion in the group was seen as being valu- The results suggest that these objectives were broadly met.
able, suggesting processes of social integration: “It was good to look The different options for bringing in disciplinary perspectives (via
at it as a group and discuss it.” “For me it was important to get to know interview, during the consortium meeting and via commenting on
the research team in this way.”‘I remember that after the meeting I drafts) succeeded in broad participation of the research team and
went home with a very positive feeling.’ initiated processes of mutual understanding. Combination of fig-
Approximately one third of the participants stated that they ures with accompanying written analysis seemed to be appropriate
ended up re-thinking the design of their own subproject follow- in this setting. While visualisation of the most important elements
ing the discussion during the consortium meeting, indicating here and their relations encouraged the participants to agree on the
a learning process. This is also illustrated by the following remark: project’s focus, the written analysis allowed for inclusion of greater
‘It had a certain influence on my research question. Not that I changed detail and the documenting of conflicting positions. These results
it a whole lot, but there are aspects that I have in my mind now as a kind confirm the importance of visualisation as a key element accom-
of background information.’ As mentioned above, this is especially panying discursive methods (Kruse, 2008). Refering specifically
true for the subprojects dealing with fenlands. After recognizing the to CA as a method, Ohlhorst (2009: 64) concludes that visualisa-
low relevance of irrigating fenlands with treated waste water, they tion and language support each other in the process of mutual
enlarged their focus towards examining the more general question understanding, since they compensate each other’s deficits and dif-
of water management on these sites (Fig. 4). ficulties. However, as the feedback from some scientists indicates,
Feedback on the method was, however, ambivalent. While a the method is not self-explanatory and could have been introduced
majority of the participants agreed that visualisation of the con- better by the responsible subproject.
stellation was very helpful for understanding the overall context Compared to the problem framing of the initial proposal, the
of ELaN, approximately one third found the presentation confusing discursive process led to a more refined perception of impor-
and had difficulties understanding the method (see Table 2). tant elements and their interrelations. Especially the recognition
The results of the evaluation of the stakeholder workshop show of more nuanced positions regarding risk assessment, the tension
that most of the participants were very interested in the project between nature protection and intensive agriculture and the design
and felt that the workshop motivated exchange and provided valu- of future water management strategies was an important starting
able insights into the topic (see Table 3). Most participants felt point for the development of strategies able to bridge different
that exchange between researchers and practitioners had worked interests and logics of action. Further on in the project, the con-
out well and were optimistic that their comments would be taken sideration of these nuanced positions partially led to adjustments
into consideration by the research team. However, a majority of regarding the character of the striven-for end products. To carry out
the participants also agreed with the statement that there was these discussions during an early stage of the project also helped
536 M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539
Table 2
Results of the evaluation of the consortium meeting.
Table 3
Results of the evaluation of the stakeholder workshop.
I am very interested in the project and its Practical relevance of the topic 16 0 0
results.
The topic is very relevant for my professional Practical relevance of the topic 8 4 5
life.
The scientific assumptions of the project are Practical relevance of the topic 5 6 5
not really linked to practical problems.
These topics have already been analysed and Practical relevance of the topic 12 2 1
discussed for decades – what is missing is
putting them into practice.
Graphic presentation of the topic was helpful Appropriateness of the method 10 4 3
for my understanding of the problem.
The event has provided valuable insights into Design of the workshop 13 4 0
the project and the topic.
The workshop has motivated exchange with Design of the workshop 15 2 0
colleagues and other participants.
Discussion today remained too superficial. Quality of the exchange 5 2 9
I have the impression that my comments were Quality of the exchange 2 4 9
not taken seriously and will not be
considered by the project team.
The important conflicts in this field were not Quality of the exchange 3 8 5
sufficiently addressed.
Exchange between scientific and practical Quality of the exchange 12 2 3
actors worked out well during the workshop.
to identify actors in the different fields of water and land manage- responsible sub-projects. These adjustments suggest that learning
ment who were open to innovation and reflection upon established processes based on the exchange between scientists and practition-
practices. Identification of these actors made it possible to address ers did take place. The process therefore seems to have exhibited
them as possible pioneers further on in the project. These experi- characteristics of knowledge integration as “a process that leads to
ences therefore confirmed the importance of joint problem framing a change in the structure and organization of a problem context by
as a first step in complex sustainability problems dealing with high extending and constraining both” (Jahn et al., 2012: 7).
levels of uncertainty and diverging interests (Jahn et al., 2012; Pohl The process of problem framing based on applying CA there-
and Hirsch Hadorn 2008b; Tress et al., 2007; Scholz et al., 2009). fore appears to have initiated processes of mutual understanding
This is especially true for issues in the field of land use management, and supported the project in confronting knowledge fragmen-
which are often characterised by competing interests, such as eco- tation, which is a general characteristic of modern societies.
nomic considerations versus acknowledgement of environmental Fragmentation of knowledge can not only be observed in research
concerns. (fragmentation in disciplinary knowledge) but also in governmen-
At some points, the process of joint problem framing led to tal administration and politics (Kruse, 2008). In ELaN, for example,
insights which indicated the need to broaden the focus of the it became very clear that, for example, dealing with issues related
research project (e.g. concerning the question of water manage- to surface water, ground water and waste water in different admin-
ment for fenlands). Since CA was carried out in the first phase istrative departments hampers perspectives for integrative risk
of a five-year project, this insight could still be taken up by the assessment of these interconnected systems. Systemic solutions
M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539 537
will only be possible if regular exchange and joint problem solving with practitioners. This type of integration is characterized as being
between such actors is institutionalised. ELaN offered an experi- “consultative” (Mobjörk, 2010). Only practitioners of the advi-
mental forum for such exchange. sory board were integrated into a more active way in the process
of knowledge production. But their integration does not appear
5.2. Reflecting on the quality of the transdisciplinary exchange to fulfill the far-reaching demands formulated for “participatory
transdisciplinarity” by Mobjörk (2010), conceived as an approach
Overall, a small team of researchers was responsible for inte- that achieves an open character on all levels: actors involved, meth-
grating the heterogeneous disciplinary and practical knowledge by ods chosen and developed, and problem addressed.
producing a draft of the Constellation Analysis first and then sub- Throughout the research process, the advisory board was able
sequently completing and correcting this draft. Diverging from the to act as an adequate forum for mutual discussion and learning on
procedure chosen for ELaN, there is also the possibility of conduct- an equal footing. It was consulted as a group twice per year and
ing a CA in close collaboration between scientific researchers and in between on a bilateral basis with regard to certain aspects of
practitioners from the very beginning (Schön et al., 2007). The iden- the research process. These practitioners, who also had a close link
tification of the main elements and their relations is then subject to to the research topic due to their professional backgrounds, had
discussions and direct exchange, until the participants agree on a a stronger influence on the research process than those who were
joint picture. In this case, the responsible researchers mainly have a integrated on an irregular basis. They especially had a decisive influ-
moderating function. To generate CA in this way is only possible in ence on the design of some of the integrative end products, such
groups of 8–10 persons, however, and can be a very time consum- as the administrative manual and governance recommendations.
ing process (Schön et al., 2007). On the other hand, it can provide The research team concluded that these actors did achieve a shift
participants with in-depth insights into contrasting opinions. For from consultative towards participatory transdisciplinarity via the
ELaN it was necessary to integrate a larger number of participants. research process. The mutual relations involved, which included
Since the research team already comprised over 45 persons, the valorisation of different types of knowledge as being equivalent,
option of developing a CA in direct exchange did not seem feasible. can also be designated as “power balanced relationships”, which are
It also seemed to be reasonable to reach an interdisciplinary agree- recommended by Scholz (2011: 376) for attaining an ideal trans-
ment on the constellation first before opening up the discussion to disciplinary process.
a broad range of practitioners. Although this procedure seems to be The project team concluded that it made sense to involve dif-
adequate regarding the project context (size of the project team and ferent practitioner groups at different levels of intensity, which
available time resources), there is no doubt that a relatively small has also been recommended by other authors (Tress et al., 2006).
research team made the final decisions about which information A mixture of consultative and participatory transdisciplinary is
was given consideration and which supplements and corrections required in order to take the restrictions of time resources in
were actually made. Going through several recursive loops, how- complex research teams as well as availability of practitioners
ever, pretty much assured that a broad range of perspectives was into account. Exploring different participatory modes can con-
adequately included. The principle of recursiveness is stressed by tribute towards closing the diagnosed gap between theory and
various authors dealing with transdisciplinary research (e.g. Pohl practice within transdisciplinary research, acknowledging that the-
and Hirsch Hadorn, 2008a: 430). oretical approaches are often excessively complex for real-world
Practitioners participated in the process of problem framing at applications (Zscheischler and Rogga, 2015; Brandt et al., 2013;
different levels of intensity. Some members of the advisory board Blättel-Mink and Kastenholz, 2005).
and several other relevant practitioners were involved at an early
stage via interviews, integrating their expertise already in first
drafts of the graphic representations of the constellations. Mem- 6. Conclusions
bers of the advisory board also had the option to comment on the
written analysis of the CA and to provide detailed feedback in the The ELaN project took up the challenge of integrating frag-
context of an advisory board meeting. mented knowledge in the fields of water and land management –
The workshop with a broader group of practitioners who had both of which had previously been mostly approached separately
not aligned with the project before had the main purpose of intro- in scientific research as well as in practice. Knowledge from differ-
ducing the project to regional actors and getting feedback regarding ent scientific and practical strands was brought together to explore
demands and reservations at an early stage. The method of present- this new topic and to draw a more thorough picture of the chal-
ing and discussing the CA for the two sites in the space of a four-hour lenges facing sustainable water and land management in specific
workshop can be seen as a compromise between the objective of sites. A shared understanding of the problem was jointly devel-
offering participative options and the limited time resources of the oped in order to update, modify and refine the assumptions of the
invited practitioners. The evaluation via questionnaire indicates preparatory phase of the project. For this purpose, the method of
that the workshop succeeded in raising interest about the project Constellation Analysis (CA) was used.
and that the majority of the participants felt taken seriously. While Based on the experiences had during the ELaN project, we draw
the feedback was mainly positive, there were critical remarks espe- the following conclusions regarding methods and processes for
cially regarding the superficiality of the discussion and transfer of inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge integration:
research results into practical action. The research team concluded
from these experiences that more in-depth discussions should be
carried out with certain target groups, especially those which had • The importance of an initial phase of joint problem framing
been underrepresented at the workshop, such as farmers. appears to have been confirmed for projects of this type. The main
Reflection on the process leads us to the conclusion that the benefits of this step are the integration of fragmented knowledge,
transdisciplinary design of ELaN during this early phase mainly had resulting in system knowledge as a basis for the subsequent work
the character of being ‘consultative’ rather than being “participa- in the subprojects and the social integration of heterogeneous
tory”, a differentiation made by Mobjörk (2010: 870). Practitioners actors. Additionally, getting a first impression about conflicting
in this phase mainly had the role of responding and reacting to perspectives as well as possible bridging concepts can be benefi-
problem framing already developed by the research team, who cial for subsequent phases of the project. Although the process
had included information previously gained through interviews was rather time consuming due to several iterative feedback
538 M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539
loops, efforts of this kind seem to be justified for large consor- Bergmann, M., Brohmann, B., Hoffmann, E., Loibl, C., Rehaag, R., Schramm, E., Voß,
tiums and projects of long duration. J.-P., 2005. Quality Criteria of Transdisciplinary Research: A Guide for the
Formative Evaluation of Research Projects. ISOE-Studientexte, Nr. 13, Frankfurt
• A method which links visualisation with written analysis seems
am Main.
to be helpful for this step of joint problem framing. Visualisation Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C., Schramm, E., 2012.
serves the need of clarifying a projects’ focus and can facilitate Methods for Transdisciplinary Research: A Primer for Practice. Campus,
Frankfurt/Main.
obtaining a quick overview of the aspects involved, while the Blättel-Mink, B., Kastenholz, H., 2005. Transdisciplinarity in sustainability
written analysis enables inclusion of a range of differing per- research: diffusion conditions of an institutional innovation. Int. J. Sustainable
spectives and document conflicting positions. We feel that CA Dev. World Ecol. 12 (1), 1–12.
Brand, K.-W., 2000. Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Besonderheiten, Probleme und
has been proven to be suitable for this purpose. In comparison to
Erfordernisse eines neuen Forschungstyps. In: Brand, K.-W. (Ed.), Nachhaltige
other methods, it also has the advantage of dealing with technical Entwicklung und Transdisziplinarität. Besonderheiten, Probleme und
and natural elements, actors and signs as being equally impor- Erfordernisse der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Analytica, Berlin, pp. S9–28
(Angewandte Umweltforschung; 16).
tant, which can encourage researchers from different disciplines
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson,
and practitioners from different fields to relate more easily to the D.J., Wehrden, H., 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability
method. science. Ecol. Econ. 92, 1–15.
• Integrating various practitioners at differing levels of intensity Bruns, E., Ohlhorst, D., 2011. Wind Power Generation in Germany – a
transdisciplinary view on the innovation biography. J. Transdisciplinary
in such a process is recommendable, taking into account the rel- Environ. Stud. (TES) 10, 45–67 (no. 1).
evance of individual actors in relationship to a given problem Callon, M., Law, J., Rip, A. (Eds.), 1986. Mapping the Dynamics of Science and
and their resource constraints. Participatory transdisciplinarity Technology. MacMillan Press. Houndmills.
Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., 2015. Integrating knowledge: challenges raised by the
probably can only be accomplished with a small group of actors inventory of synthesis. Futures 65, 123–135.
who have a strong interest in the issue at stake and are willing Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1994.
to become involved in knowledge co-production. Consultative The New Production of Knowledge. In: The Dynamics of Science and Research
in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.
transdisciplinarity, including a broader range of actors, can never- Giri, A.K., 2002. The calling of a creative transdisciplinarity. Futures 34 (1),
theless be important for assuring basic acceptance and openness 103–115.
towards sustainability projects in given contexts. Hinkel, J., 2008. Transdiciplinary Knowledge Integration: Cases from Integrated
• Knowledge integration from the very beginning of a research Assessment and Vulnerability Assessment. Ph. D. Thesis. Wageningen
University.
project is a demanding task. It has to be designed thoroughly, and Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy,
the additional efforts (in time and manpower) required have to W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., Zemp, E. (Eds.), 2008. Handbook of
Transdisciplinary Research. Springer, Heidelberg.
be taken into account. Without application of appropriate meth-
Hunecke, M., 2011. Wissensintegration in der transdisziplinären
ods and a clear responsibility for carrying out and reflecting upon Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Eine Fallstudie zur Anpassung an zunehmende
them, this task can hardly be successfully accomplished. Starkniederschläge in urbanen Räumen. GAIA 20/2, 104–111.
Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., Keil, F., 2012. Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming
and marginalization. Ecol. Econ. 79, 1–10.
Regarding the relevance of this method for land use research, Kröger, M., Rückert-John, J., Schäfer, M., 2012. Wissensintegration im nachhaltigen
we conclude that discussions about problem framing in a broader Landmanagement. Inter- und transdisziplinäre Problembeschreibung im
Projektverbund ELaN. ELaN Discussion Paper, Müncheberg (download: http://
group of practitioners at an early project stage can be very helpful www.elan-bb.de/media/pdf/Publikationen/EDP2 Kroeger 978-3-943679-05-2.
for identifying actors who are open to reflection upon – and possibly pdf).
change of – established land management practices. Further on in Kruse, S., 2008. Structuring Multiple Perspectives in Environmental
Decision-Making: Flood Protection in the Middle Elbe River. In: Edmundson,
the project, these actors can play an important role as pioneers for R., Rau, H. (Eds.), Environmental Argument and Cultural Differences: Locations,
sustainability innovations in land use. Transdisciplinary research Fractures and Deliberations. Peter Lang, Oxford, Great Britain, pp. 37–64.
projects can, in the process, play an important role in establishing Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling,
M., Thomas, C.J., 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science:
‘experimental sites’ which enable the testing and monitoring of practice, principles, challenges. Sustainability Sci. 7 (S1), 25–43.
such innovative practices. Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through
Actors in land management organisations are confronted with Society. Harvard University Press, Cambrigde, MA.
Limoges, C., 1993. Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts.
uncertainties and inconsistencies in their daily practices regarding
Public Understanding Sci. 2 (4), 417–426.
issues such as regulation or dealing with risks. Transdisciplinary Loibl, M.C., 2006. Integrating perspectives in the practice of transdisciplinary
projects can provide discursive platforms for exchange with other research. In: Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R. (Eds.), Reflexive Governance for
Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Great Britain, pp.
actors in this field, even beyond the traditional boundaries of spe-
294–309.
cialised expertise. These projects have the resources to organise McDonald, D., Bammer, G., Dean, P., 2009. Dialogue tools for research integration
and moderate exchanges of this kind and document the results, Canberra. ANU E Press. The Australian University, Australia.
thus providing participants with a common point of reference for Mobjörk, M., 2010. Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: a refined
classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 42, 866–873.
their future work. Niederberger, M., Wassermann, S. (Eds.), 2014. Methoden der Experten- und
Summing up, this article has sought to contribute towards Stakeholdereinbindung in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung. VS Verlag
making methodological advances for knowledge integration in für Sozialwissenschaften.
Ohlhorst, D., 2009. Windenergie in Deutschland: Konstellationen, Dynamiken und
inter- and transdisciplinary research. In doing so, we would like Regulierungspotenziale im Innovationsprozess. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden,
to encourage other authors to share their experiences with apply- Germany.
ing methods for problem framing or knowledge integration. As Pérez-Soba, M., Petit, S., Jones, L., Bertrand, N., Briquel, V., Omodei-Zorini, L.,
Contini, C., Helming, K., Farrington, J.H., Mossello, M.T., Wascher, D., Kienast, F.,
Zscheischler and Rogga (2015) point out, a common understanding Groot, R. de, 2008. Land use functions – a multifunctionality approach to assess
of methods and success factors for knowledge integration are not the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability. In: Sustainability
yet in sight, but transparent ways of proceeding and reflexive dis- Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 375–404.
Pohl, C., Hirsch Hadorn, G., et al., 2008a. Core terms in transdisciplinary research.
cussions about experiences had are preconditions for advancing in
In: Hadorn, G. (Ed.), Handbook for Transdisciplinary Research. Springer,
this direction. Heidelberg, pp. 427–432.
Pohl, C., Hirsch Hadorn, G., 2008b. Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary
research. Nat. Sci. Soc. 16, 111–121 (download: http://www.nss-journal.org/
References articles/nss/pdf/2008/02/nss8204.pdf).
ProClim Forum for Climate and Global Change, 1997. Research on Sustainability
Bammer, G., 2013. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation and Global Change – Visions in Science Policy by Swiss Researchers
Sciences for Researching Complex Real-world Problems. ANU E Press, The (download: http://proclimweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/1122.pdf).
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
M. Schäfer, M. Kröger / Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 526–539 539
Rammert, W., 2003. Technik in Aktion: Verteiltes Handeln in soziotechnischen Scholz, R.W. (2000). Mutual learning as a basic principle of transdisciplinarity. In:
Konstellationen. In: Christaller, T., Wehner, J. (Eds.), Autonome Maschinen. R.W., Scholz, R., Häberli, A., Bill, M. Welti (Eds.): Transdisciplinarity: Joint
Campus, Frankfurt am, pp. 289–315. Problem-Solving among Science, Technology and Society. Haffmans, Zürich,
Rossini, M., 2009. Was ist das Problem? Problemstrukturierung in der inter- und Vol. Workbook II, S. 13–17.
transdisziplinären Forschung. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theor. Prax. 18 (1), Scholz, R.W., 2011. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society. In: From
117–119. Knowledge to Decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Scavarda, A.J., Bouzdine-Chameeva, T., Meyer Goldstein, S., Hays, J.M., Hill, A.V., Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G. (2006). Defining concepts and the process of knowledge
2006. A methodology for constructing collective causal maps. Decis. Sci. 37, production in integrative research. In: Tress, B., Tres, G., Fry, G., Opdam, P.
263–283 (number 2). (Eds.) From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration,
Schäfer, M., Ohlhorst, D., Schön, S., Kruse, S., 2010. Science for the future: Education and Application: 13–26.
challenges and methods for transdisciplinary sustainability research. Afr. J. Sci. Tress, G., Tress, B., Fry, G., 2007. Analysis of the barriers to integration in landscape
Technol. Innovation Dev. (AJSTID) 2, 114–137 (No. 1). research projects. Land Use Policy, 374–385.
Schön, S., Kruse, S., Meister, M., Nölting, B., Ohlhorst, D., 2007. Handbuch Truffer, B., 2007. Wissensintegration in transdisziplinären Projekten: Flexibles
Konstellationsanalyse. In: Ein interdisziplinäres Brückenkonzept für die Rollenverständnis als Schlüsselkompetenz für das Schnittstellenmanagement.
Nachhaltigkeits-, Innovations- und Technikforschung. Oekom Verlag, GAIA 16/1, 41–45.
München. Zierhofer, W., Burger, P., 2007. Desentangling transdisciplinarity: an analysis of
Scholz, R.W., Mieg, H.A., Oswald, J.E., 2000. Transdisciplinarity in groundwater knowledge integration in problem-oriented reserach. Sci. Stud. 20 (1), 51–74.
management – towards mutual learning of science and society. Water Air Soil Zscheischler, J., Rogga, S., 2015. Transdisciplinarity in land use science – a review of
Pollut. 123, 477–487. concepts, empirical findings and current practices. Futures 65, 28–44.
Scholz, R.W., Spoerri, A., Lang, D.J., 2009. Problem structuring for transitions: the
case of Swiss waste management. Futures 41 (3), 171–181.