Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes

Abstract

This paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes that address 'competing claims' on natural resources and their management. Research in the context of competing claims requires strategies that: (1) can cope with high uncertainty and unpredictability; (2) are concerned with understanding the multiple dimensions of the issue at stake; (3) can facilitate change across different scales and levels; (4) include collaboration with different actors and stakeholders; and (5) may imply new roles for research and researchers. This paper reviews and builds upon research approaches to address these challenges. These research approaches are combined in a framework for dynamic research configurations that aims to stimulate reflection among researchers and to promote more embedded, context-sensitive and flexible research strategies.

Doing water research differently for innovation in regional water productivity in Australia

“…social networks, institutional arrangements) that enable innovation and, in particular, contain the possibility of enabling institutional change. For research to play effective roles on such platforms, it has been argued that this requires different ways of setting the agenda for research and innovation, allocating funding for research, as well as determining and organising the different roles research plays in innovation processes and connects with societal stakeholders in partnerships (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008;Pittens et al 2014;Schut et al 2014;Dentoni and Klerkx 2015). Hence, the systemic approach to innovation supported by innovation platforms also requires innovation in terms of how research practices are organised: hence the platform for innovation both influences how innovations to enhance regional water productivity are taking place and how research to support that process is systemic interaction should be adequately organised and supported, as we will argue in Section 1.2.…”

What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs

“…Innovation intermediation literature appears as a subset of innovation studies, aiming at understanding the actors, repertoires, domains, and extent of intermediation practice [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. Another scholar stream, less focused on agency, brings about the discussion about knowledge mediation started by Latour [51] and intermediation [52][53][54].…”

The Political Economy of Cardamom Farming in Eastern Nepal: Crop Disease, Coping Strategies, and Institutional Innovation

“…Innovation refers to a set of fruitful interactions between various stakeholders to achieve successful transformation (Clark et al, 2003;Edquist, 1997;Lundvall, 1992;Prasad, 2007), but the interaction between policy makers, farmers, and stakeholders in the cardamom sector (Figure 4) is weak, due to poor institutional capacity and expertise. There is a need for a systematic approach to cardamom disease that not only addresses crop problems but also involves stakeholders including farmers, officials, technicians, experts, and policy makers (Klerkx, Mierlo, & Leeuwis, 2012;Pautasso & Pautasso, 2010;Rodenburg et al, 2015;Schut, van Paassen, Leeuwis, & Klerkx, 2014). Sharma et al (2009) assert that there is a need for sound policies and institutions to protect the cardamom crop.…”