Skip to main content

Table 6 HOW: forms of power exercised by funding body, researchers, and practitioners

From: Whose knowledge, whose values? An empirical analysis of power in transdisciplinary sustainability research

HOW: power in rule settingFunding bodyResearchersPractitioners
InstrumentalSetting the rules, formats, and timing of participation; based on their authority as project leaders as well as their financial and time resources
StructuralShaping the rules of resource allocation among researchers and practitioners and of project (co-)leadership (not involving practitioners); based on material sources shaping the structural conditions and the procedural options of the actors involvedSilent or outspoken threat of ending collaboration due to actors’ disrespect of rules or refusal to adapt rules; keeping practitioners away from certain activities (e.g., data collection); based on their authority as project leaders and their legitimacy as researchersSilent or outspoken threat of withdrawal due to actors’ disrespect of rules or refusal to adapt rules; shaping the terms of researchers’ entering the field, access to data or actors in the field; based on their legitimacy in the field and their actor networks
DiscursiveReferring to ‘transdisciplinarity’ as an ideal of how researchers and practitioners should interactReferring to ‘equal footing’ as an ideal of how researchers and practitioners should interact, questioning clear-cut boundaries between research and practice; referring to norms of ‘good’ scientific practice to reinforce rulesReferring to/upholding division of labour between research and practice as ideal