Varieties of research coordination: A comparative analysis of two strategic research consortia

Wardenaar, Tjerk; Jong, Stefan de; Hessels, Laurens K.

doi:10.1093/scipol/scu008

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In more intensive co-creation constellations, practitioners actively participate in data collection, assist in the interpretation of findings, or translate research results to practical contexts [3,24]. On the programme level, practitioners typically participate in decision making about the overall goals, programme design, and the research priorities of the programme [13,25]. On the intermediate level, practitioners can be given the responsibility to oversee a particular set of research projects, to supervise the progress and relevance in a particular research theme, or to establish links between ongoing research activities and topical political, economic, or social developments [18].…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is wide agreement about the importance of transdisciplinary research to address complex sustainability issues. Although there is a growing body of literature about the management of transdisciplinary research programmes as well as the challenges relating to the collaboration between academic researchers and practitioners, empirical research has to date paid little attention to the challenges related to the variation of practitioners involved in these programmes. This paper presents a comparative analysis of three transdisciplinary programmes addressing climate change and sustainability and identifies factors that contribute to fruitful collaboration between heterogeneous practitioners. Contrary to what could be expected from the literature, differences between the practitioners involved have only created significant issues in one of the programmes, and this programme has developed a way to cope with this difficulty. Effective strategies to avoid and limit tensions among practitioners include a focus on bilateral collaborations, the careful selection of programme participants, and the appointment of dedicated project monitors who are responsible for social learning processes.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As van der Meulen (2003) showed, the challenge for intermediaries is not to become too closely associated with government and lose the trust of the scientific community and vice versa. Important types of intermediaries are research councils (to address adverse selection) (Caswill 2003;van der Meulen 2003), research assessment systems (to address moral hazard) (Barker 2007) and research programmes (to address both adverse selection and moral hazard) (Shove 2003;Wardenaar et al 2014). University departments are another type of intermediary.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Again, in our experience, there are generally scientists who like to be involved in organising impact debates. Approaches such as SIAMPI (Spaapen and van Drooge 2011;Molas-Gallart and Tang 2011;De Jong et al 2014) have proved to be useful to relate practical examples to policy concepts.…”

Section: Recommendations For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a rich body of literature studying the characteristics of those involved in impact processes by means of interviews, surveys or existing databases (D'Este et al 2013;Lam 2011;Jensen et al 2008). Another strand of literature provides insight into impact dynamics, based on interviews with academics as informants, in order to reconstruct impact pathways (Olmos-Peñ uela et al 2014;De Jong et al 2014;Spaapen and van Drooge 2011). A third collection of studies deals with methods and indicators for assessing societal impact (Donovan and Butler 2007;Meagher et al 2008;De Jong et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox

Jong

Smit

Drooge

2015

Science and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many countries have amended legislation and introduced policies to stimulate universities to transfer their knowledge to society. The effects of these policies on scientists are relatively unexplored. We employ principal-agent theory to increase our understanding of the relationship between impact policies and scientific practice. Our methodology includes the analysis of policy documents and of data gathered in focus groups. We conclude that there is a gap between policy on the one hand and how scientists perceive it on the other. Policy documents put forward a broad notion of impact, but scientists perceive them as focusing too narrowly on commercial impacts. Scientists are further puzzled by how societal impact is evaluated and organised, and their perceptions frame their behaviour. Our policy recommendations focus on improving the interaction between intermediaries, such as universities and research councils, and scientists so as to include the latter's perspective in policy-making.

show abstract

“…The promise of global science to address 'grand challenges' such as climate change, resource depletion, food security or health provides an important justification for the allocation of resources to global collaborative research programmes, including Future Earth (Keenan et al, 2012). Such research programmes have been characterised as coordination mechanisms that mediate between global trends and demands of science in society and the everyday practices of scientific knowledge production (D. Braun, 2003;Hessels, 2013;Wardenaar, Jong, & Hessels, 2014). Elizabeth Shove's (2003) analysis of research programmes in action reveals the complex relationship between research programmes and the research community operating under its umbrella.…”

Section: Governance and Organisation Of Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

New Science Institutions for Global Sustainability

Hel¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addressing this question, I am focusing specifically on the principle of co-production and related participatory ideals. The principle of co-production is relatively novel and different perspectives on its meaning, desirability and implementation exist. This allows me to study how different perspectives shape the development of global science institutions. I will address this question in Chapter 5 and Chapter 9.

show abstract

Varieties of research coordination: A comparative analysis of two strategic research consortia

Cited by 11 publications

References 21 publications

Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes

Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes

Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox

New Science Institutions for Global Sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About