Control before Collaborative Research – Why Phase Zero Is Not Co-Designed but Scripted

References

• Abbott, A. 1995. “Sequence Analysis: New Methods for Old Ideas.” Annual Review of Sociology 21: 93–113. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adam, B. 2004. Time. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Adam, B., and C. Groves. 2007. Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. “A Summary of A Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. S. Law, 259–264. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich, M. 1992. “The De-Scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology/ Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, E. 2002. “Transformations of Social and Ecological Issues into Transdisciplinary Research.” Knowledge for Sustainable Development: An Insight into the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems 3: 949–963.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelissen, J. P., and M. D. Werner. 2014. “Putting Framing in Perspective: A Review of Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature.” The Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 181–235. doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.875669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escobar, O. 2015. “Scripting Deliberative Policy-Making: Dramaturgic Policy Analysis and Engagement Know-How’.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 17 (3): 269–285. doi:10.1080/13876988.2014.946663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeth, R., and G. Caniglia. 2019. “Learning to Collaborate while Collaborating: Advancing Interdisciplinary Sustainability Research.” Sustainability Science: 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. 1963. “A Conception Of, and Experiments with “Trust” as A Condition of Stable Concerted Actions.” In Motivation and Social Interaction, edited by O. J. Harvey, 187–238. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2007. “Working Towards Sustainable Development in the Face of Uncertainty and Incomplete Knowledge.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9: 245–262. doi:10.1080/15239080701622774.
   Google Scholar
• Hoos, I. 1972. “System Analysis in Public Policy - A Critique.” Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jahn, T., M. Bergmann, and F. Keil. 2012. “Transdisciplinarity: Between Mainstreaming and Marginalization.” Ecological Economics 79: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jardini, D. 2000. “Out of the Blue Yonder: The Transfer of Systems Thinking from the Pentagon to the Great Society, 1961–1965.” In Systems, Experts, and Computers: The Systems Approach in Management and Engineering, World War II and After, edited by A. C. Hughes and T. Hughes, 311–358. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
   Google Scholar
• Lewin, K. 1982. Feldtheorie. Bern: Huber.
   Google Scholar
• Mattozzi, A. 1987. “Rewriting The Script. A Methodological Dialogue About The Concept Of “Script” and How To Account For The Mediating Role of Objects.” Paper presented at a colloquium at the University of Twente in September 1987, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Moser, S. C. 2016. “Can Science on Transformation Transform Science? Lessons from Co-design.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 20: 106–115. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohl, C., and G. H. Hadorn. 2007. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Munich: Oekom.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. A. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Breda, J., and M. Swilling. 2019. “The Guiding Logics and Principles for Designing Emergent Transdisciplinary Research Processes: Learning Experiences and Reflections from a Transdisciplinary Urban Case Study in Enkanini Informal Settlement, South Africa.” Sustainability Science 14 (3): 823–841. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0606-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Hel, S. 2016. “New Science for Global Sustainability? The Institutionalisation of Knowledge Co-production in Future Earth.” Environmental Science & Policy 61: 165–175. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaughan, D. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vilsmaier, U., V. Brandner, and M. Engbers. 2017. “Research In-between: The Constitutive Role of Cultural Differences in Transdisciplinarity.” Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science 8: 169–179.
   Google Scholar
• Virilio. [1977] 2006. Speed and Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiek, A., and D. J. Lang. 2016. “Transformational Sustainability Research Methodology.” In Sustainability Science. An Introduction, edited by H. Heinrichs, P. Martens, G. Michelsen, and A. Wiek, 31–41. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. 1966. “The Political Economy of Efficiency. Cost-Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Program Budgeting.” Public Administration Review 26 (4): 292–310. doi:10.2307/973301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar