Exploratory Scoping of Place‐Based Opportunities for Convergence Research

Abstract Harnessing scientific research to address societal challenges requires careful alignment of expertise, resources, and research questions with real‐world needs, timelines, and constraints. In the case of place‐based research, studies can avoid misalignment when grounded in the realities of specific locations and conducted in collaboration with knowledgeable local partners. But literature on best practices for such research is underdeveloped on how to identify appropriate locations and partners. In practice, these research‐design choices are sometimes made based on convenience or prior experience—a strategy labeled opportunism. Here we examine a deliberative and exploratory approach in contrast to default opportunism. We introduce a general framework for scoping place‐based opportunities for research and engagement. We apply the framework to identify climate‐adaptation planning decisions, rooted in specific communities, around which to organize research and engagement in a large project addressing coastal climate risks in the Northeast US. The framework asks project personnel to negotiate explicit project goals, identify corresponding evaluation criteria, and assess opportunities against criteria within an iterative cycle of listening to needs, assessing options, prioritizing actions, and refining goals. In the application, we elicit a broad range of objectives from project personnel. We find that a structured process offers opportunities to collaboratively operationalize notions of equity and justice. We find some objectives in tension—including equity objectives—indicating trade‐offs that other projects may also need to navigate. We reflect on challenges encountered in the application and on near‐term costs and benefits of the exploratory process.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earth s Future
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024ef004908
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Rural development and sustainability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
9.66

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exploratory Scoping of Place‐Based Opportunities for Convergence Research

Thomas Wahl, Jorge Lorenzo‐Trueba, Lisa Auermuller, Elisabeth Gilmore et al.
2 citations
Earth s Future
Rural development and sustainability
9.66
article

Exploratory Scoping of Place‐Based Opportunities for Convergence Research

Thomas Wahl, Jorge Lorenzo‐Trueba, Lisa Auermuller, Elisabeth Gilmore, Victoria C. Ramenzoni, Sönke Dangendorf, Nancy Tuana, Robert E. Kopp, Casey Helgeson, Kathleen Parrish, Klaus Keller, Michael Oppenheimer, DeeDee Bennett Gayle
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Harnessing scientific research to address societal challenges requires careful alignment of expertise, resources, and research questions with real‐world needs, timelines, and constraints. In the case of place‐based research, studies can avoid misalignment when grounded in the realities of specific locations and conducted in collaboration with knowledgeable local partners. But literature on best practices for such research is underdeveloped on how to identify appropriate locations and partners. In practice, these research‐design choices are sometimes made based on convenience or prior experience—a strategy labeled opportunism. Here we examine a deliberative and exploratory approach in contrast to default opportunism. We introduce a general framework for scoping place‐based opportunities for research and engagement. We apply the framework to identify climate‐adaptation planning decisions, rooted in specific communities, around which to organize research and engagement in a large project addressing coastal climate risks in the Northeast US. The framework asks project personnel to negotiate explicit project goals, identify corresponding evaluation criteria, and assess opportunities against criteria within an iterative cycle of listening to needs, assessing options, prioritizing actions, and refining goals. In the application, we elicit a broad range of objectives from project personnel. We find that a structured process offers opportunities to collaboratively operationalize notions of equity and justice. We find some objectives in tension—including equity objectives—indicating trade‐offs that other projects may also need to navigate. We reflect on challenges encountered in the application and on near‐term costs and benefits of the exploratory process.

Earth s FutureVol. 13(3)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), University of Central Florida (US), Dartmouth College (US), Tulane University (US), Pennsylvania State University (US), Princeton University (US), Princeton Public Schools (US), University of Florida (US), University at Albany, State University of New York (US), Carleton University (CA)
National Science Foundation, Dartmouth College, Pennsylvania State University
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Rural development and sustainability
9.66
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.