Table 6 HOW: forms of power exercised by funding body, researchers, and practitioners
HOW: power in rule setting | Funding body | Researchers | Practitioners |
|---|---|---|---|
Instrumental | – | Setting the rules, formats, and timing of participation; based on their authority as project leaders as well as their financial and time resources | – |
Structural | Shaping 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 involved | Silent 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 researchers | Silent 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 |
Discursive | Referring to ‘transdisciplinarity’ as an ideal of how researchers and practitioners should interact | Referring 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 rules | Referring to/upholding division of labour between research and practice as ideal |