The impact of collaborative research approaches on science and society has been subject to much debate and speculation. However, empirically grounded analyses of the process-impact link remain the exception. That includes comparing participation planning, intended processes, expectations and implementation. This paper delivers a theoretically informed comparison between different approaches to participation that are practised. It does so by performing a criteria-guided analysis of 31 participatory sustainability studies covering different areas of study and spatial levels. This provides an understanding of how participation is translated from theory into practice, what challenges occur that contradict initial aims, and how these potentially influence expected effects. The results show stark divergences between planning and implementation: persistent normative ideals in the planning phase, echoing deliberative and emancipatory claims, contrast with an emphasis on effectiveness during implementation. This leads to a systematic over-representation of experts and an under-representation of diverse societal actors in the studies. The focus is on producing directly measurable results rather than promoting possible (long-term) societal effects. These findings facilitate a deeper discussion of which conditions and procedures could aid the design and delivery of high-impact collaboration in the future.

中文翻译：

---

参与可持续性科学的（非）预期影响：以标准为导向的比较案例研究

合作研究方法对科学和社会的影响已经引起了很多争论和猜测。然而，对过程影响联系的实证分析仍然是个例外。这包括比较参与计划、预期过程、期望和实施。本文提供了不同实践参与方法之间的理论上的比较。它通过对涵盖不同研究领域和空间水平的 31 项参与式可持续性研究进行标准指导分析来实现这一目标。这提供了对参与如何从理论转化为实践、与初始目标相矛盾的挑战以及这些挑战如何潜在地影响预期效果的理解。结果显示规划和实施之间存在明显差异：在规划阶段坚持规范理想，呼应审议和解放的主张，与在实施过程中强调有效性形成鲜明对比。这导致研究中专家系统性地过多，而不同社会参与者的代表性不足。重点是产生直接可衡量的结果，而不是促进可能的（长期）社会影响。这些发现有助于更深入地讨论哪些条件和程序可以帮助未来高影响力合作的设计和交付。重点是产生直接可衡量的结果，而不是促进可能的（长期）社会影响。这些发现有助于更深入地讨论哪些条件和程序可以帮助未来高影响力合作的设计和交付。重点是产生直接可衡量的结果，而不是促进可能的（长期）社会影响。这些发现有助于更深入地讨论哪些条件和程序可以帮助未来高影响力合作的设计和交付。