Undone science, funding, and positionality in transportation research

ABSTRACT

A robust body of research in transportation has brought to light valuable findings and supported the development of important tools. However, crucial questions of “undone” science remain – topics and methods that current research practices could partially overlook. This review essay argues that transportation research could benefit from more critical reflection on researchers’ positionalities, the field’s emphasis on some methods and topics rather than others, and the role of funding. The article first considers the questions of funding influence and researcher positionality in the broader social sciences literature and then the implications of funding and positionality in transportation research. In the United States, transportation funding generally emphasises engineering fields and applied solutions; historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups are a small share of researchers. Because of disciplinary traditions, funding, positionality, and other factors, transportation research paradigms may give relatively less attention to social issues, qualitative data, and local knowledge, while emphasising quantitative data, modelling, physical factors, and infrastructure building. The purpose of this paper is to start a dialogue, using the social science literatures, information about the transportation field, and examples of the importance of social and qualitative methods. Collective dialogue about researchers’ positionalities and demographics, different types of knowledge, and the field could uncover important areas and approaches for transportation research and practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Research funding
• positionality
• qualitative methods
• undone science
• pedestrianism

Acknowledgements

I appreciate the review of Untokening’s principles by Adonia Lugo and comments by the three anonymous reviewers. Julie Steiff provided editorial assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 In this manuscript and in many other contexts, the term “paradigm” is used less narrowly, in line with one of Merriam Webster’s definitions: “a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind” (merriamwebster.com).

2 I thank an anonymous reviewer for helping me explicitly link observed research gaps with positionalities.

3 I queried NSF’s database of funded projects using the advanced search feature with the keyword of “transportation” for awards first made in the calendar year 2017. The search yielded 1,174 results, but a review of titles and abstracts in an exported file indicated that many projects were not, in fact, relevant to surface transportation. Thus, I reviewed all of the titles from this search and, when necessary, the abstracts. I included projects with substantial surface transportation elements, even when they were combined with other systems and foci, and projects involving fuel/combustion systems when the transportation application was central.

4 One of the reviewers pointed out this important caveat for interpretation of the TRB attendance data.

5 Reviewers helped generate the idea to pursue this connection.

6 A reviewer rightly points out that infrastructure required and merited a great deal of engineering research.

7 Here they is used as a gender neutral third-person pronoun, in line with American Psychological Association Style guidelines.