Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: A cross-country comparison

94Citations
Citations of this article
150Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jakobsen, C. H., Hels, T., & McLaughlin, W. J. (2004). Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: A cross-country comparison. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00080-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free