Cited by 56Interdisciplinary Research and CollaborationSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceResearch, Science, and Academia

Ideals, practices, and future prospects of stakeholder involvement in sustainability science

Open access
Mielke, Jahel, Vermaßen, Hannah, Ellenbeck, Saskia·2017·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Even though stakeholder involvement (SI) is increasingly relevant in scientific research processes, especially in interdisciplinary fields like sustainability science, there is limited academic literature investigating conceptual or methodological questions. Through a survey among researchers from this field, this paper presents an overview of practices and ideals of SI as well as of their divergence. Furthermore, trade-offs between scientific ideals and SI, as well as necessary improvements concerning, for example, methods or funding, are described. To add to the conceptualization of SI, the survey data were related to a typology that differentiates democratic, technocratic, neoliberal-rational, and functionalist views of SI in science. The findings can form one possible basis for development of SI toward a more standardized research approach in sustainability science.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1706085114

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [38]Brandt P 2013 A review of transdisciplinary research insustainability science Ecol Econ 92 1 15
  2. [64]Ritchie J Lewis J Elam G 2003 Designing and selecting samples Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for Sociel Science Students and Researchers Ritchie J Lewis J SAGE London 77 108

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mielke, J., Vermaßen, H., & Ellenbeck, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
  • University of Erfurt (DE)
Corresponding author
Mielke, Jahel
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2017-11-21
Volume
114
Issue
50
Pages
E10648-E10657
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2769823251
Cited by
56
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7
FWCI
8.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RENATE (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RENATE
Funders
  • German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01UN1213B)
  • Center for Political Practices and Orders, University of Erfurt (000)
  • Heinrich-Böll-Foundation (000)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
stakeholder engagement, sustainability science, science-policy interface, democratic science, ideal types, transition studies, science and society

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review