Table 1. Description of the study’s...

Table 1.

Description of the study’s objectives, methods and sample for each of the seven steps recommended by Lüscher and Lewis (2008)

Step	Rational for each step based on Lüscher and Lewis (2008)	Objective	Method used	Sample, material
Step	Rational for each step based on Lüscher and Lewis (2008)	in/of this study
1	Articulate mess/challenges	Institutional change and integration of sustainable development, success factors and challenges	Guided interviews	15 CAs from 13 Austrian universities (9 F, 5 L, 1S)
2	Formulate problem and dilemma	Mapping of challenges and identification of potential tensions	Qualitative content analysis and interpretation	15 interview transcripts from Step 1
3	Validate and select dilemma	Validation and rating of relevance of tensions for CAs and universities; selection of highly relevant tensions	Online survey	36 CAs from 17 Austrian universities (18F, 7L, 9S, 2O)
4	Formulate paradoxes	Deeper understanding of selected tensions	Elaboration of six selected tensions	Responses from Step 3 and literature
5	Validate paradoxes and discuss workable strategies	Review of tensions and discussion of tension management	Two group discussions on three selected tensions each	29 CAs from 17 Austrian universities (10F, 5L, 7S, 7O)
6	Workable certainty	Elaboration of tension management strategies	Qualitative content analysis and interpretation	Transcripts of group discussion
7	Reflection sessions	Obtaining feedback on the questioning pathway and quality of group discussion	Online feedback on group discussion	28 of 29 discussion participants (Step 5)

Step	Rational for each step based on Lüscher and Lewis (2008)	Objective	Method used	Sample, material
Step	Rational for each step based on Lüscher and Lewis (2008)	in/of this study
1	Articulate mess/challenges	Institutional change and integration of sustainable development, success factors and challenges	Guided interviews	15 CAs from 13 Austrian universities (9 F, 5 L, 1S)
2	Formulate problem and dilemma	Mapping of challenges and identification of potential tensions	Qualitative content analysis and interpretation	15 interview transcripts from Step 1
3	Validate and select dilemma	Validation and rating of relevance of tensions for CAs and universities; selection of highly relevant tensions	Online survey	36 CAs from 17 Austrian universities (18F, 7L, 9S, 2O)
4	Formulate paradoxes	Deeper understanding of selected tensions	Elaboration of six selected tensions	Responses from Step 3 and literature
5	Validate paradoxes and discuss workable strategies	Review of tensions and discussion of tension management	Two group discussions on three selected tensions each	29 CAs from 17 Austrian universities (10F, 5L, 7S, 7O)
6	Workable certainty	Elaboration of tension management strategies	Qualitative content analysis and interpretation	Transcripts of group discussion
7	Reflection sessions	Obtaining feedback on the questioning pathway and quality of group discussion	Online feedback on group discussion	28 of 29 discussion participants (Step 5)

Notes:

The roles of change Agents (CAs) within universities are described as F (Faculty) = scientific staff, L (University Leaders) = (vice-)rectors and staff in strategic positions, S (Staff) = individuals working in supporting roles or other nonscientific positions, O = multiple/other roles

Source: Authors’ own creation/work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable