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 
Report / download web link (=direct link): http://www.aquadapt.net/pdf/Lemon_-_Revisiting_Montpellier.p ...  
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. 
Link to Project(s): AQUADAPT Strategic tools to support adaptive, integrated water resource management under changing utilisation conditions at catchment level: A co-evolutionary approach
 
Submitted By: Dr Stefan Gödeke WhoDoesWhat?      Last update: 14/02/2006