Understanding Researchers’ Positionality in Integrating and Designing the Transdisciplinary Research Process and Outcomes: A Case Study of Thriving Agriculture Project
Open Access
- Author:
- Singh, Parmveer
- Graduate Program:
- Agricultural and Extension Education
- Degree:
- Doctor of Philosophy
- Document Type:
- Dissertation
- Date of Defense:
- October 03, 2024
- Committee Members:
- Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Chair & Dissertation Advisor
Emily Pakhtigian, Outside Unit & Field Member
John Ewing, Major Field Member
Mark Brennan, Major Field Member
Mark Brennan, Professor in Charge/Director of Graduate Studies - Keywords:
- Stakeholder participation
co-production of knowledge
conceptual clarity
transdisciplinary research wicked problems
Delphi study
consensus
program evaluation - Abstract:
- Sustainability challenges, also known as wicked problems, are inherently complex, and developing solutions to these problems is beyond the capability of any single discipline. This necessitates collaboration among stakeholders with a 'stake' in these issues and their solutions. In response to these challenges, the transdisciplinary research (TDR) approach is increasingly employed due to its potential to tackle the complexity of these issues by integrating diverse disciplines and stakeholders. The present dissertation presents three studies: The first study aimed to investigate the theoretical knowledge of TDR and transdisciplinary researchers (TD researcher) and the application of these concepts in a case study, i.e., the Thriving Agriculture project funded under the Sustainable Agricultural Systems (SAS) funding portfolio of the USDA NIFA. Out of 42 members of the Thriving Agriculture Project, 21 members agreed to participate in interviews for the study. The qualitative data were collected from the project's faculty members (n= 15) and graduate students (n= 06) from March to June 2024. Data were collected online (n = 19) and in person (n=02) and further recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. The salient findings showed a significant knowledge gap in the conceptual understanding of researchers about the concepts of TDR and TD researcher. TDR was understood as an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research approach. Our findings synthesized that TDR is a process that can address complex challenges by integrating diverse disciplines and perspectives of researchers and stakeholders while considering contextual factors such as social, historical, and economic. Additionally, the components of TD researcher identity included their ability to solve problems, build collaborations, integrate diverse disciplines and stakeholders, understand contextual factors, and have personal motivation to address challenging issues. Research showed that the nature of complex challenges, opportunities for collaboration, research skills, and engagement with external stakeholders were some of the motivations for participants. The research also showed that motivations identified in the research were similar to advantages derived while working in the Thriving Agriculture Project (e.g., improving knowledge and skillsets, professional development, collaborations across disciplines, institutions, and external stakeholders). Nevertheless, the difficulty in understanding and managing projects, complex dynamics, understanding one's own positionality, time management, and logistical constraints were some of the hindrances encountered while working on the Thriving Agriculture Project. In the second study, we studied the conceptual understanding, application, and benefits of stakeholder participation and co-production of knowledge. We used a methodology similar to the one mentioned in the first study. Findings showed significant uncertainty and confusion about the stakeholder participation and co-production of knowledge processes. In light of the findings, we were able to define stakeholder participation as an active and iterative collaborative process aimed at supporting the researchers with current happenings outside the academic silos. From the application perspective, the stakeholders familiarize researchers with ground-level issues, help track project progress, refine the research process, share outcomes, and seek feedback. To researchers, stakeholder participation was a satisfying experience, but for a few, they did not show much satisfaction. Most researchers anticipate collaborating with existing stakeholders in the future, but discontinuance or conditional engagement was also found. The reasons behind the discontinuance or conditional engagement were subject to the availability of resources, stakeholders' interests, location, and project scope. In the case of the co-production of knowledge, participants benefitted in terms of their enhanced accountability towards stakeholders, expanding research horizons, and stakeholder engagement, while the co-production was perceived to be beneficial for stakeholders as they gained access to scientific information, awareness of research issues, and networking opportunities. From both studies (I and II), the knowledge gap, i.e., lack of clarity and certainty in the case of TDR, TD researcher, stakeholder participation, and co-production, demonstrates the need for transdisciplinary research education and capacity-building programming. In response, funding agencies, institutional support, and capacity-building programs are essential to providing researchers with TDR's essential skills and knowledge to address complex challenges. The third study sought to establish core competencies needed by evaluators for evaluating the TDR projects. The study involved a three-round modified Delphi study using a panel of 26 evaluators selected from 41 projects in the SAS funding portfolio of the USDA's NIFA grant program. The data were collected online using a Qualtrics survey and yielded a set of 60 competencies reflecting key areas of transdisciplinary research, data collection methods, ethical considerations, interpersonal skills, and program planning and management. There was 100% agreement for nine competencies, for example, conducting the responsible evaluations (i.e., ethical conduct, fairness, stakeholder engagement, and accountability). More specifically, the analysis of the competencies guided by the American Evaluation Association framework (2018) revealed that the majority of competencies fell into the categories of Methodology (31.7%, n=19), followed by Professional Practice (15%, n=9), context (13.3%, n=8), Planning & Management (10%, n=6) and Interpersonal (10%, n=6), the rest of competencies were specifically related to TDR and classified into a new category, 'Unique to TDR'. This category captured 12 competencies, such as understanding the theory and practice of TDR. Our findings guide TDR evaluators in considering these competencies while engaging in the evaluation pursuit. Understanding and applying competencies identified in the study helps draw attention to what needs to be in the toolkit of evaluators for evaluating TDR projects. Therefore, the funding agency and capacity builders need to include and support these competencies in the skill development training programs for practical evaluation of the TDR projects.