Creating Inspiring Workshops and Courses in Transdisciplinarity: A Guide - Manual / Resource - Page 113
Identify actors, roles, and expectations: Setting goals
collectively and managing expectations
•
Mitchell, C., Cordell, D., & Fam, D. (2015). Beginning at the end: The
outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary
research. Futures, 65, 86–96.
•
Wuelser, G., Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2012). Structuring
complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable
development: a framework. Sustainability Science, 7, 81-93.
•
Wuelser, G. (2014). Towards adequately framing sustainability goals
in research projects: The case of land use studies. Sustainability
Science, 9, 3, 263–276.
•
Mitchell, C., Cordell, D., & Fam, D. (2015). Beginning at the end: The
outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary
research. Futures, 65, 86–96.
•
Reed, M.S. A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris,
C. Prell, C.H. Quinn, & L.C. Stringer (2009). Who’s in and why? A
typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–
1949.
•
Schneider, F., & Buser, T. (2019). Promising degrees of stakeholder
interaction in research for sustainable development. Sustainability
Science, 13, 129–142.
•
Oberlack, C., Breu, T., Giger, M., Harari, N., Herweg, K., Mathez-Stiefel,
S. L., ... & Schneider, F. (2019). Theories of change in sustainability
science: Understanding how change happens. GAIA-Ecological
Perspectives for Science and Society, 28(2), 106–111.
•
Taplin, D. and Clark, H. (2012). Theory of change basics. Primer on
theory of change. ActKnowledge, New York.
•
Thompson, D, (n/d). Theory of Change (TOC) Overview & Approach.
TREC Strategic Planning Resource.
Communication
•
Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H.
Guston, J. Jäger & R. B. Mitchell (2003). Knowledge systems for
sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA, 100, 8086–8091.
•
Chinn, S., D. S. Lane & P. S. Hart (2018). In consensus we trust?
Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public
Understanding of Science, 27, 807–823.
•
Clark, W. C., L. van Kerkhoff, L. Lebel & G. C. Gallopin (2016). Crafting
usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA, 113, 4570–4578.
•
DeLorme, D. E., S. H. Stephens & S. C. Hagen (2018). Transdisciplinary
sea level rise risk communication and outreach strategies from
stakeholder focus groups. Journal of Environmental Studies and
Sciences, 8, 13–21.
•
Fricker, M. (1999). Epistemic oppression and epistemic privilege.
Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 25, 191–210.
Identify actors, roles, and expectations: Theory of change
•
Center for Theory of Change (organizational website)
•
Clark, H. (2003). SCOPE: How Much Should a Good Theory Account
For? Center for Theory of Change: New York.
•
•
Deutsch, L., B. Belcher, R. Claus, & S. Hoffmann (2021). Leading
inter- and transdisciplinary research: Lessons from applying theories
of change to a strategic research program. Environmental Science &
Policy, 120, 29–41.
Gustafson, A. & R. E. Rice (2016). Cumulative advantage in
sustainability communication: Unintended implications of the
knowledge deficit model. Science Communication, 38, 800–811.
•
Jameson, J. K., A. M. Bodtker & T. Linker (2010). Facilitating conflict
transformation: Mediator strategies for eliciting emotional
communication in a workplace conflict. Negotiation Journal, 26, 25–48.
Grantcraft (2006). Mapping Change: Using a Theory of Change to
Guide Planning and Evaluation. Grantcraft
•
Linker, M. (2014). Epistemic privilege and expertise in the context of
meta-debate. Argumentation, 28, 67–84.
•
References
p. 108
