Balancing divergence and convergence in transdisciplinary research teams

Abstract Climate adaptation projects often involve joint knowledge production, including different stakeholders and disciplines. One of the main challenges of transdisciplinary research projects is to balance the convergence and divergence of epistemic contributions. We explore to what extent organisational embedding of project teams, input in the project, and project governance influence project performance in climate adaptation projects. Our results indicate that aligning incentive systems and lower partner diversity lead to higher effectiveness and satisfaction. Project size enhances effectiveness, but decreases satisfaction. Satisfaction is enhanced by committed project members. Furthermore, dealing with diverse partner sets and large teams is not eased by careful management in the course of the project. Careful balancing of divergence and convergence should be taken into account during the design stage of these projects. In the context of knowledge co-production for environmental challenges, project management should proactively consider project structure, required level of partner diversity and project size.

[1]  L. Dyer,et al.  Right from the Start: Exploring the Effects of Early Team Events on Subsequent Project Team Development and Performance , 2004 .

[2]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[3]  Linda D. Molm,et al.  Dependence and risk: transforming the structure of social exchange , 1994 .

[4]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations , 2007 .

[5]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects , 2011 .

[6]  Oliver Ibert.  Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational learning in the Munich software ecology , 2004 .

[7]  K. Provan,et al.  Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level: A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks , 2007 .

[8]  J. Levine,et al.  Progress in Small Group Research , 1990 .

[9]  Jacqueline E. W. Broerse,et al.  Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: learning how and what? , 2011 .

[10]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[11]  M. Feldman,et al.  The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography , 2011 .

[12]  R. Pielke,et al.  The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science , 2007 .

[13]  Terry Cooke-Davies,et al.  The “real” success factors on projects , 2002 .

[14]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Demand articulation in emerging technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers? , 2011 .

[15]  Niki Vermeulen,et al.  Collaboration in the new life sciences , 2010 .

[16]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[17]  Patrick Kenis,et al.  TOWARDS AN EXOGENOUS THEORY OF PUBLIC NETWORK PERFORMANCE , 2009 .

[18]  Keith G. Provan,et al.  Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks , 1999 .

[19]  T. Carter,et al.  Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies , 2010 .

[20]  E. McNie.  Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature , 2007 .

[21]  B. Kiteme,et al.  Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal , 2010 .

[22]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[23]  Noriko Hara,et al.  An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  R. Bakker.  Taking Stock of Temporary Organizational Forms : A Systematic Review and Research , 2010 .

[25]  Wim van Vierssen,et al.  Climate proofing the Netherlands , 2005, Nature.

[26]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effectsof Interorganizational and Interpersonaltrust on Performance , 1998 .

[27]  Maryse M. H. Chappin,et al.  Decision Rules and Group Rationality: Cognitive Gain or Standstill? , 2013, PloS one.

[28]  B. Nijstad,et al.  The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science , 2004 .

[29]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology , 2000 .

[30]  M. Verbree.  Dynamics of Academic Leadership in Research Groups , 2011 .

[31]  J. Hackman,et al.  The design of work teams , 1987 .

[32]  Christian Pohl,et al.  From science to policy through transdisciplinary research , 2008 .

[33]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[34]  M. Hobday.  The Project-Based Organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? , 2000 .

[35]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[36]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Inter-firm alliances: Analysis and design , 1999 .

[37]  Wesley Shrum,et al.  The organization of scientific collaborations , 2002 .

[38]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: PAST RESEARCH, PRESENT FINDINGS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS , 1995 .

[39]  D. Sarewitz.  How science makes environmental controversies worse , 2004 .

[40]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups , 2001 .

[41]  Kara L Hall,et al.  The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[42]  C. Dieperink,et al.  Toward design principles for joint knowledge production projects: lessons from the deepest polder of The Netherlands , 2012, Regional Environmental Change.

[43]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[44]  Leon A.G. Oerlemans,et al.  Continuity and change in interorganizational project practices : the Dutch shipbuilding industry, 1950-2010 , 2013 .

[45]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Empirical Tests of Optimal Cognitive Distance , 2004 .

[46]  Carel Dieperink,et al.  Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action , 2012 .

[47]  Anton de Wit,et al.  Measurement of project success , 1988 .

[48]  James D. Ford,et al.  A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations , 2011 .

[49]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Team diversity and information use , 2005 .

[50]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Network Embeddedness and the Exploration of Novel Technologies: Technological Distance, Betweenness Centrality and Density , 2006 .