| Title: |
Re-visiting Montpellier: The utility of crossdisciplinary conceptualisations.
|
| Resource Type: |
document --> technical publication --> report
|
| Country: |
EU Projects
|
| Year: |
2002 |
| Availability: |
Lemon, M. (2002): Re-visiting Montpellier: The utility of crossdisciplinary
conceptualisations.
|
| Author 1/Producer: |
Lemon, M. (2002): Re-visiting Montpellier: The utility of crossdisciplinary
conceptualisations.
|
| Author / Producer Type: |
EC Project
|
| Format (e.g. PDF): |
PDF
|
|
EUGRIS Keyword(s): |
Contaminated land-->Soil and groundwater processes-->Soil and groundwater processes overview
|
| Short description: |
Introduction:
A key feature of cross-disciplinary work, and particularly that which is issue oriented
and crosses between policy, academic research and stakeholder involvement is the
need for common conceptual frameworks. These frameworks should provide the
foundation for communication between agencies while avoiding what is a misguided
search for consensus. In the Aquadapt meeting that took place in Montpellier
towards the end of October 2002 a number of such frameworks were outlined to the
project teams by experts in cross-disciplinary research. The purpose of this paper is
to try and recapture the essence of those presentations and to consider their utility
for this style of integrative and issue(s) oriented work.
Brief discussions were held with workshop participants after the presentations. The
intention of these was to establish how, and in what way, they felt the conceptual
frameworks were likely to be useful in their own research. The outcome of these
discussions was to be recorded and presented in this paper. Much of the material
and the language used to communicate it, was however new to many of the
participants and there was relatively little variation in the responses to, or insight
about, the value of the concepts and approaches presented. These could be broadly
encapsulated in the following:
1) The presentations were interesting but difficult to follow because the approaches
were new and not 'grounded' in the Aquadapt cases.
2) There was general agreement that the presentations included useful insights but
that these would require considerable time to be assimilated and their value
might only emerge as the research process unfolds.
3) Alternatively, some respondents felt that had the presentations been made earlier
in the project a recapping and contextualisation at this stage would have
improved the likelihood of assimilation.
4) The perceived need to contextualise the conceptual frameworks had two parts to
it. Firstly there were too few clear and grounded examples and secondly there
was inadequate insight provided about how the frameworks could be
'operationalised' within the research process.
|
|
Submitted By:
|
Dr Stefan Gödeke WhoDoesWhat?
Last update: 14/02/2006
|
|
|
