Understanding how institutions may support the development of transdisciplinary approaches to sustainability research

This article analyses the approaches of academics seeking to engage with private, public and community-based stakeholders through transdisciplinary research about pressing sustainability challenges and, in particular, climate change; it outlines aspects of the institutional factors which influence transdisciplinary research. A qualitative approach was employed in conducting 10 semi-structured interviews to analyse the challenges and motivations of academic researchers when working with a range of other stakeholders through transdisciplinary practice. Two key contributions are made through this work. First, this article adds to the existing literature on motivations and challenges for undertaking research with private, public and community stakeholders in a cross-disciplinary manner. Second, the current institutional circumstances influencing such research practices are outlined, alongside potential ways forward. The research presented here has been undertaken in light of the experiences of the two lead co-authors as early career researchers coming from the disciplines of sociology and energy engineering, engaging in transdisciplinary research within a local community context in relation to a regional energy transition project

Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market

In European Seas, plastic litter from fishing activities, river transport, and poor waste management is one of the fastest growing threats to the health of the marine environment. Extruded polystyrene (XPS) and expanded polystyrene (EPS), specifically, have become some of the most prominent types of marine litter found around Europe’s coastlines. To combat this problem, the European Commission has ratified a series of regulations and policies, including the Single-Use Plastics Directive and the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. However, in order to ensure that the benefits of such regulations and policies are realized at a scale that can adequately address the scope of the problem, decision-makers will need to integrate the opinions, values, and priorities of relevant stakeholders who operate across the EPS/XPS product lifecycle. In this study, we apply a 35-statement Q-methodology to identify the priorities of stakeholders as they relate to the Irish EPS/XPS market and the wider societal transition to a circular economy. Based on the responses of nineteen individuals representing industry, policy-makers, and community leaders, we identified three distinct perspectives: System Overhaul; Incremental Upgrade; and Market Innovation. The results demonstrate that the type and format of policy interventions linked to Ireland’s EPS/XPS circular economy are heavily contested, which presents significant challenges for driving the debate forward. These results provide valuable information on viewpoints that can be used by different stakeholders at national and EU levels to address areas of conflict, ultimately fostering the development of more effective, broadly supported co-developed policies

Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many

The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in middle-aged and older populations. Ensuring the correct balance between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs is a significant challenge. Clinicians are tasked with ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications based on the best available evidence, and that medication use is optimised according to patients’ clinical needs (appropriate polypharmacy). Historically, polypharmacy has been viewed negatively because of the associated medication safety risks, such as drug interactions and adverse drug events. More recently, polypharmacy has been identified as a risk factor for under-prescribing, such that patients do not receive necessary medications and this can also pose risks to patients’ safety and well-being. The negative connotations that have long been associated with the term polypharmacy could potentially be acting as a driving factor for under-prescribing, whereby clinicians are reluctant to prescribe necessary medicines for patients who are already receiving ‘many’ medicines. It is now recognised that the prescribing of ‘many’ medicines can be entirely appropriate in patients with several chronic conditions and that the risks of adverse drug events that have been associated with polypharmacy may be greatly reduced when patients’ clinical context is taken into consideration. In this article, we outline the current perspectives on polypharmacy and make the case for adopting the term ‘appropriate polypharmacy’ in differentiating between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs. We also outline the inherent challenges in doing so and provide recommendations for future clinical practice and research