Abstract
Approaches to engaged research, which do not just produce
academic knowledge, but link with people and groups in society, have long
intellectual roots. In recent years, however, for epistemological, practical
and ethical reasons, interest in such approaches has gained ground. At
the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) we seek to adopt an 'engaged
excellence' approach to research. We have identified four pillars that
support engaged excellence: high-quality research; co-construction of
knowledge, mobilising impact-orientated evidence; and building enduring
partnerships. This introduction interrogates this approach, deepening our
understanding of what it means, whilst also acknowledging the challenges
which it poses. It raises questions about who defines what good quality
research is; how, why and who we co-construct knowledge with; what
counts as impact; and how we build enduring partnerships. It also touches
on some of the implications for both researchers themselves and the
institutions through which we work.
Keywords: engagement, quality, co-construction, impact, partnership, knowledge.
1 Introduction
Across the world, researchers, policymakers and practitioners alike have
long struggled with how to create knowledge that is both rigorous in
its own right, and relevant and useful to those whose lives and futures
are potentially affected by new evidence, insights and concepts. At the
Institute of Development Studies (IDS), we seek to combine highquality,
conceptually and empirically innovative research, with extensive
engagement with particular countries, localities and people through
our practices, partners and students (IDS 2015: 5). We have called this
approach 'engaged excellence', by which we mean that the high quality
of our work (excellence) is dependent upon it linking to and involving
those who are at the heart of the change we wish to see (engaged).
We have identified four pillars of engaged excellence (ibid.):
The articles in this IDS Bulletin all challenge us to interrogate this
approach, to deepen our understanding of what it means, whilst also
acknowledging the challenges which it poses. They raise important
questions about who defines what good quality research is; how, why and
who we co-construct knowledge with; what counts as impact; and how we
build enduring partnerships.
In recent years, several debates have emerged about how to make academic research more 'engaged'. The motivation for these debates has varied from a recognition that engagement can contribute to improving the impact of research; to normative arguments that research needs to engage with those it seeks to influence, and to democratise knowledge; to epistemological arguments that the multiple nature of truth necessitates the engagement of multiple perspectives (Oswald 2016). This introduction, together with the articles in this IDS Bulletin, contribute to these debates and attempt to articulate IDS' approach to engaged excellence and the unique contribution such an approach can make.
Many of the arguments laid out in this IDS Bulletin are not new. Indeed,
we at IDS, as well as others, have been making similar arguments for
several decades. This is demonstrated by the inclusion in this issue
of four archive articles from previous IDS Bulletins, covering a period
between 1979 and 2007. In 1979, Howes and Chambers argued for the
inclusion of indigenous technical knowledge in development framings,
essentially calling on IDS, and development more broadly, to bring
together both scientific and indigenous knowledge in order to generate
greater relevance and a richer picture where multiple truths prevail.
In 1994, Davies stated that knowledge is power, and called on IDS,
and other institutions in the global North, to examine our role in the
production of knowledge and the framing of global problems. In 2002,
Leach and Fairhead explored how science and policy processes are
embedded in broader power relations, calling on researchers to engage
with and critically analyse the politics of knowledge in policy processes.
Finally, in 2007, Standing and Taylor asked us whose knowledge counts
within development studies, challenging Northern institutions like
IDS to pay attention to how we create partnerships in order to reduce
inequalities in knowledge production.
Today, IDS researchers and partners are exploring and applying
engaged excellence around diverse topics and issues. Those addressed in
the articles in this IDS Bulletin range from natural resource management
(Apgar et al.) and transformations to sustainability (Ely and Marin) to
food security and nutrition (Pittore et al.), sexual violence (Dolan et al.),
young people's sexualities (Oosterhoff and Shephard) and the role of
universities in democratising knowledge (Tandon et al.). They cover a
range of geographies, from Finland to Uganda. In so doing, they also
raise important questions and challenge us to reflect more deeply on
what engaged excellence means and needs to mean in different contexts.
This introduction is structured around the four pillars of engaged excellence: delivering high-quality research; co-constructing knowledge; mobilising impact-orientated evidence; and building enduring partnerships, emphasising their mutual interdependence. Each section draws on the contributions to this IDS Bulletin to explore the epistemological, methodological, ethical and practical implications of this approach.
2 Delivering high-quality research
The four pillars of engaged excellence are mutually dependent
– therefore, high-quality research will need to be based on the
co-construction of knowledge, it will need to mobilise impact-orientated
evidence, and be based on enduring partnerships – in other words it will need to be engaged with society, not detached from it. Exactly what
'engaged' means is discussed by all the articles in this IDS Bulletin, but
two articles in particular, Dolan et al. (this issue) and Tandon et al. (this
issue), turn the phrase 'engaged excellence' around and outline what
they believe to be examples of excellent engagement.
The concept of engaged excellence moves us away from an
understanding of quality research being that which tells us the 'truth', as
if that were a neutral 'thing' to reveal. Jasanoff makes the argument well:
Science… is understood as neither a simple reflection of the truth about nature nor an epiphenomenon of social and political interests… Co-production… [is] a critique of the realist ideology that persistently separates the domains of nature, facts, objectivity, reason and policy from those of culture, values, subjectivity, emotion and politics (2004: 3).
A similar point is made by Funtowiczi and Ravetzi who state that:
invoking 'truth' as the goal of science is a distraction, or even a diversion from real tasks. A more relevant and robust guiding principle is quality, understood as a contextual property of scientific information… by bringing 'facts' and 'values' into a unified conception of problem solving in these areas, and by replacing 'truth' by [sic] 'quality' as its core evaluative concept. Its principle of the plurality of legitimate perspectives on any problem leads to a focus on dialogue, and on mutual respect and learning, wherever possible (2003: 1–3) [italics added].
An interesting discussion that arises in some of the articles in this IDS Bulletin is who defines what good quality research is. Pittore et al. (this issue) argue that in order for their research to have credibility with the policymakers they are trying to influence, their research, and the methodology it uses, must be seen to be legitimate. In other words, their research methods need to be trusted and seen as robust. There has been a long and vibrant debate within academia about how to define rigorous and robust research. Different research paradigms have different understandings depending on their epistemological viewpoints. An engaged excellence approach, that encourages researchers to engage with each other (interdisciplinary) and actors outside academia (transdisciplinary), helps us to understand that good quality research will be rigorous in whatever epistemological and methodological approach it uses (i.e. be able to explain why a particular methodological approach has been used, based on a particular epistemological viewpoint), and robust in the application of the chosen method(s) and approach. A further criterion that an engaged excellence approach raises is relevance, i.e. that we need quality research that is relevant to the problems we are seeking to address.
Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) also discuss the value of legitimacy,
arguing that one reason for Southern organisations to partner with a
Northern research institute like IDS is to benefit from their credibility amongst donors and other institutions, but they note that these benefits
may or may not outweigh the costs of 'reinforcing the notion that
excellence only exists in – or is, at any rate, judged in – the North'.
3 Co-constructing knowledge
3.1 Why should we co-construct knowledge?
The co-construction of knowledge is a process of bringing together
multiple kinds of knowledge and multiple perspectives to construct
an understanding of research phenomena based on a plurality of
situated knowledges (Oswald 2016). This includes the knowledge and
perspectives of those outside the research establishment; of people
and groups in society, be they members of communities, businesses,
governments, activist organisations or development agencies.
The implications of this are that:
[t]he research process can no longer be characterized as an 'objective' investigation of the natural (or social) world, or as a cool and reductionist interrogation of arbitrarily defined 'others'. Instead, it has become a dialogic process, an intense (and perhaps endless) 'conversation' between research actors and research subjects…
(Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons 2003: 187).
This position has long been recognised in constructivist epistemology which argues that knowledge is situated and always represents the standpoint of the knower (Pietrykowski 2015: 244; Haraway 1988).
However, one can argue for the co-construction of knowledge, not just from an epistemological perspective, but also from a normative perspective. The dominant Western paradigm of scientific–rational knowledge has been criticised for inflicting an injustice on subaltern forms of knowledge by failing to recognise alternative ways of knowing and dominating what is understood as 'truth' (Visvanathan 2005; Santos, Nunes and Meneses 2008). Universities themselves have perpetuated this injustice. Gaventa and Bivens argue that:
universities [need] to think not only about justice in the larger world, but also about their own distinctive role in shaping cognitive justice and knowledge democracy. Without cognitive justice – which focuses on whose knowledge counts – the larger struggles for social justicewill not be realized (2014: 149).
From the perspective of cognitive justice and the pursuit of
democratising knowledge, the co-construction of knowledge is a moral
necessity, but should also ensure that more holistic and pluralistic
knowledge is produced, which will mean research is better able to
address complex problems (Oswald 2016).
Tandon et al. (this IDS Bulletin) pick up on and extend this argument by
calling for an acknowledgement of ecologies of knowledge that recognise
that knowledge is not just cognitive, but that we also know through acting upon the world and feeling about the world. They state that knowledge
can exist in multiple forms: text, images, stories, music, drama, poetry,
ceremony, etc. This is demonstrated by Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) who
document the powerful role that participatory video and theatre played in
their collaborative research project, arguing that these methods allowed
deeply personal stories to be articulated using 'non-verbal expression of
emotional truths that are difficult to communicate in words'. In turn,
this provided the research with a deeper understanding of participants'
experience, and challenged commonly held assumptions (ibid.).
Oosterhoff and Shephard (this IDS Bulletin) draw on the concept of
affective engagement, to argue that emotions and affection play a role in
understanding our preferences and choices, and therefore, research that
creates an affective link with people may be more likely to have impact
on them. Their article directly links the acknowledgement of different
types of knowledge being legitimate (feeling as knowledge) with the call
to mobilise impact-orientated evidence, by arguing for the creation of
evidence that resonates with people at an emotional level. The research
Oosterhoff and Shephard (this IDS Bulletin) document specifically used
creative methods such as music, as a form of knowledge, to document
the experiences of young Kenyans and to share them with others. They
argue that knowledge shared in this form resonates with young people
and is therefore more likely to have an impact.
Accepting non-cognitive knowledges as legitimate ways of knowing
is important both for building knowledge democracy and for
de-colonialising the academic curricula. Tandon et al. (this IDS Bulletin)
draw on Grosfoguel's 'four genocides/Epistemicides of the Long
16th Century' to argue that there has been a large-scale epistemological,
as well as military, conquest, in which indigenous knowledges have been
destroyed and European 'enlightenment' came to have the monopoly
of knowledge. Universities themselves are gatekeepers of what is 'good'
and 'valid' knowledge; therefore, cognitive justice calls on universities
to co-construct what counts as valid knowledge with communities and
citizens in order to rebalance this monopoly of knowledge, and make
subaltern knowledges more visible.
Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) challenge universities in the global
North, including institutions such as IDS, to reflect on their positions
of privilege in the creation of knowledge. They problematise the
term 'engaged excellence' by questioning who defines what counts as
'engaged' and 'excellence' in research, and call for the approach to be
true to the values of collaboration and respect for multiple subjectivities.
They argue that determining what 'engaged excellence' means is
a 'politically and epistemologically positional judgement' and this
discussion should be the central focus of partnerships, which profess a
commitment to this approach.
Apgar et al. (this IDS Bulletin) also make a normative argument for
co-construction, arguing that research into resource management should make '… space for all knowledge, including IK [indigenous knowledge],
to be recognised as embedded in social and cultural institutions and
practices that enable more sustainable resource management'. They
argue that sustainable resource management systems, and research into
them, need to acknowledge and recognise socially embedded indigenous
knowledge as being just as legitimate to local communities responsible for
those systems, as scientific knowledge. However, they warn against the
way in which this is being implemented in several locations. In Canada,
for example, formal recognition of IK in shared governance processes
has 'led to their knowledge becoming subjected to a bureaucratic process
based on government set measures' (ibid.), leading to co-option and
assimilation of IK into external mechanisms. This is often due to inherent
inequalities between researchers and communities, and an instrumental
understanding of IK that fails 'to appreciate the broader political and
social processes within which knowledge is created and contested' (ibid.).
This example highlights the fact that it is not just institutions in the
global North that are privileged in the production of knowledge
compared with institutions in the global South. Institutions in the North
can marginalise the knowledge of indigenous peoples in their own
countries. The same can occur when universities and institutions in the
South, whose models of knowledge production often mirror those of
the North, also marginalise the IK of local peoples.
3.2 Co-construction of knowledge in practice
All the articles in this IDS Bulletin document some form of
co-construction of knowledge. Dolan et al. (this issue) draw on Haraway
to argue that 'the knowledge we claim is conditioned by the locations
we occupy'. They propose that an engaged excellence approach that
brings together academic and popular knowledges can deconstruct
accepted framings and create an expanded understanding of the world,
and that this is meaningful co-construction of knowledge. In their
exploration of an ongoing ten-year partnership between researchers at
IDS and the Refugee Law Project (RLP) and latterly the Men of Hope
Refugee Association Uganda (MOHRAU), Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin)
provide a powerful example of a research collaboration based on
an understanding that 'we are all "subjects" of our own lives and
narratives, not "objects" in the stories of others', which is a challenge
to traditional extractive forms of research. They explain how a ten-year
learning process, involving masculinity theorists, feminist movements,
activists for sexual and gender diversity, and human rights organisations,
has enabled a dialogue across contrasting perspectives and challenged
dominant discourses in development that frame women as victims
and men as perpetrators of violence, making invisible the experiences
and rights of male survivors. They argue that engaged excellence is
not just about co-constructing knowledge with those at the centre of
the change we collectively wish to see, but about finding spaces 'to
challenge and shift accepted ways of knowing and acting'. Apgar et al.
(this IDS Bulletin) also show how the co-construction of knowledge can
challenge dominant narratives, explaining that the research undertaken in partnership between the non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Snowchange and the Sámi people in Finland countered the idea that
their land was 'pristine'.
The co-construction of knowledge also allows us to contextualise
knowledge in the practical realities of those interested in or affected by
change, thus hopefully making it more useful and relevant. Pittore et al.
(this IDS Bulletin) argue that by partnering with local organisations, who
can interpret the value and significance of evidence on nutrition within
a specific context, they can co-construct how that evidence is framed
and used, and increase the likelihood of achieving policy impact.
Ely and Marin (this IDS Bulletin) argue that it is precisely by bringing
together diverse perspectives on complex problems that alliances can
form around transformative systemic change. They document the
formation of two Transformative Knowledge Network hubs in the UK
and Argentina that have been created to identify and investigate specific
challenges in relation to sustainability. In particular, they argue that such
co-construction has the potential to unlock impasses caused by seemingly
irreconcilable difference in perspectives held by different actors.
A key challenge when co-constructing knowledge is negotiating
ownership and authorship of that knowledge when it comes to be
published (Oswald 2016). Castleden, Sloan Morgan and Neimanis (2010)
discuss the different ways in which authorship can be understood when
working with diverse community members. They argue that '… sharing
authorship [can] require no writing at all; rather, if a community
member had in some way contributed intellectually to the project,
co-authorship was warranted' (op. cit.: 27). Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin)
reflect on this challenge, with one of the partners reflecting on their
lack of presence when research findings are published and presented,
and arguing that Northern governments' highly restrictive visa practices
often prevent Southern-based researchers from representing their work
internationally.
4 Mobilising impact-orientated evidence
Defining what we mean by 'mobilising impact-orientated evidence'
is inherently challenging. What does it mean to mobilise – are we
directly responsible for ensuring our research has impact, or are we just
responsible for making our research capable of impact? What constitutes
impact and who decides if our research has had impact? What counts as
evidence, and who decides this? The last of these questions links directly
to another – what counts as valid knowledge and from whose perspective?
All these questions challenge us to think about knowledge as power, and
who has the power to decide on the definitions of impact and evidence?
The four pillars of engaged excellence are meant to be mutually
dependent. Therefore, we can't think about what we mean by impact,
without thinking about how that relates to quality, the co-construction
of knowledge and working in enduring partnerships.
We have already argued that the high quality of our research is
dependent upon it linking to and involving those who are at the heart
of the change we wish to see. So this implies that engaged research
will involve multiple actors, particularly those who would be the
users of the knowledge produced, so the research is more likely to
be relevant and useful to those actors as part of the process. This is a
particular strength of participatory action research (PAR), highlighted
by Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) that adopts an iterative process which
includes learning throughout the research, not just at the end. Similarly,
linking research directly to advocacy in order to have a direct impact on
policymakers through the research process is one of the reasons Pittore et al.
(this IDS Bulletin) argue that separating research and advocacy is a false
dichotomy. They state that when research is developed for the purposes
of informing advocacy, the evidence can be critically examined by
researchers together with policy advocates, and its policy relevance can
be improved. An example of this was the presenting of their findings
to a caucus in parliament on nutrition in Tanzania, and the subsequent
production of a booklet including nutrition recommendations to inform
political manifestos in the run-up to the 2015 Tanzanian elections.
Understanding how our research might have impact, depends upon our theory of '[h]ow… knowledge [is] taken up in societies' (Jasanoff 2004: 42). We need to be alert to how the way in which research is initiated, framed, represented and shared will affect who regards it as relevant to them. Cash et al. argue that the effectiveness of mobilising knowledge for action decreases '… when stakeholders… [see] themselves as excluded from relevant dialogues' (2003: 8088).
Therefore, when research is a process of co-constructing knowledge with multiple actors, our understanding of impact needs to shift from a linear view, in which impact is something that happens at the end of the research process, to a view of impact as integrated throughout, precisely because of the multiple actors involved.
An engaged excellence approach implies that we need to involve
multiple actors in deciding what constitutes impact and evidence,
because we need to recognise that there will be multiple perspectives
on what counts as impact. Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) identify several
ways in which research participants can be positively impacted by the
research process, 'through making visible a social issue, the therapeutic
effect of being able to reflect upon and re-evaluate their experience as
part of the process, the experience of solidarity in knowing others are
also sharing their story, and the subversive or politicised outcome that
these consequences may generate'. Apgar et al. (this IDS Bulletin) argue
that when research is engaged, an important outcome for those involved
in the research is the recognition of their knowledge being valued
in its own right. Therefore, one form of impact can be understood
as the recognition and legitimation of different forms of knowledge
and subaltern perspectives previously ignored in mainstream research
and policy arenas. This in turn can be important to people's rights, autonomy and self-determination in social and political matters, as
Apgar et al. (this IDS Bulletin) show.
Mobilising knowledge for impact is a political process, involving both the politics of knowledge as well as the politics of policymaking. This has been acknowledged by a body of work looking at the politics of policy processes, which challenges the divide between research and policy. Wehrens, writing about public health, states that:
scholars have begun to criticize the analytical a priori separation of research, policy and practice domains that is characteristic for the two communities conceptualization… Rather, what counts as a 'scientific' issue and what counts as a 'policy-affair' is often the subject of active negotiations… the boundaries between domains are never as clear-cut as they may appear, as they are negotiated in practice (2014: 546).
Policy processes are inherently political processes, and therefore will
always involve a politics of knowledge that is subject to negotiation
and debate (Keeley and Scoones 2003). This is precisely the argument
of Pittore et al. (this IDS Bulletin) when they state that there is rarely
a direct linear relationship between research and policy change, and
policy impact usually takes place over time and requires significant
advocacy efforts, by which they mean 'negotiating and mediating a
dialogue through which… ultimately decision makers take ownership
of your ideas' (quoting Young and Quinn 2012: 26). Ely and Marin
(this IDS Bulletin) make a similar argument when they discuss who was
invited to participate in the Knowledge Network on seeds in Argentina,
arguing that despite inviting actors with divergent and, in some cases,
conflicting perspectives on the issue, their hope is that this process will
ensure commitment and engagement from these actors in the future,
and open up policy discussions that were previously not happening.
Finally, working in enduring partnerships also has implications for what
we understand as impact, particularly when those partnerships are
transdisciplinary. The way in which we 'mobilise knowledge' needs to
change. Williams argues that researchers within development studies
need to:
re-evaluat[e] the role of the researcher. It is no longer sufficient to produce 'world-leading' academic articles in isolation: effective scholars, as imagined within impact evaluation practices, are also skilled in communicating their research to multiple audiences, and recognising, realising and evidencing the opportunities for their research to effect change in the wider world (2013: 232).
Researchers need to blur the lines between research and action in
order to make their research useful and relevant (Benequista 2011).
This is precisely the arguments made by all the contributions to
this IDS Bulletin: Pittore et al. argue for working directly with policy
advocates and makers; Dolan et al. argue for working in long-term partnership with activists and civil society organisations; Ely and Marin
argue for creating knowledge networks with diverse actors; Oosterhoff
and Shephard argue for working with artists and media organisations;
and Tandon et al. argue for universities to partner with communitybased
organisations. In all cases, it is because of the mutual impact
these partnerships will have on all those involved, but also the potential
impact such transdisciplinary partnerships have on the way knowledge
is taken up by societal actors.
5 Building enduring partnerships
The term 'partnership' is used to cover a multitude of different
arrangements, from those indicated previously – working together
with policymakers and activists – to subcontracting a research partner,
to agreeing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with another
institution, to receiving a grant from a funding institution. The term
partnership often has implicit implications of equality, but this may hide
significant inequalities and power relations in the partnerships we forge
(Oswald 2016). However, the articles in this IDS Bulletin make it clear that
in order to co-construct knowledge and mobilise for impact-orientated
evidence, we need to work in partnerships.
As implied by the term 'enduring', we should be aiming to build
durable, long-term and stable partnerships (Oswald 2016). Hoffman
argues that this requires mutual respect, stating that when building
partnerships, particularly with individuals and institutions outside
academia, researchers:
must recognize the extent to which discourse is inherently a dialogue rather than a monologue, a conversation requiring mutual respect and appreciation for the expertise of all sides. In order to succeed, academics need to accept that they do not have a monopoly on knowledge and expertise, and that engagement is a two-way learning process (2016: 86).
The term mutual interdependence implies that we want our partnerships
to be reciprocal (Oswald 2016). This does not necessarily mean equal,
because it is important to acknowledge that very few of our partnerships
will be truly equal, and unequal power relationships will always create
challenges for forging enduring partnerships (Strier 2011: 83). However,
it does mean that partnerships must be seen as a two-way relationship in
which both parties have an active role in shaping that partnership, and
see benefit from being in that partnership (Oswald 2016).
Mutual interdependence also implies mutual accountability (ibid.). Kajner, Fletcher and Makokis remind us that this means we need to:
think carefully about that for which they are accountable and those to whom they are accountable. These considerations are important when thinking about scholarly work with communities as well as when working with students and colleagues within the institution. When scholars enter into a shared ethical space and understand the concept of relational accountability, they respect and embrace multiple worldviews and increase both the quality and quantity of relationships (2011: 267–8).
These principles, of mutual respect, reciprocity and accountability, are actually very challenging to uphold in research partnerships. This is highlighted by several of the contributions to this IDS Bulletin, which acknowledge the constraints to upholding these principles.
Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) state that the three partners in their
research were committed to developing the research framing and
questions together, and moving away from the traditional roles that
would have seen MOHRAU conceived as 'research subjects', RLP as
the 'local logisticians', and IDS as the 'researchers'. This was to ensure
that people had the right to have a say in the decisions that affected
them (in this case research decisions). They argue that this kind of
partnership requires an openness by all involved 'to learn from – and
be impacted by – others within this collaboration', and that this was
only possible because the partnership was 'not established within
already preconceived parameters'. This is very rarely the case, as often
research partnerships are established based on research proposals
already designed and funded, or responding to calls for research
agendas set elsewhere. In particular, Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) argue
that the kind of long-term engagement that such partnerships entail
is extremely difficult to sustain given the funding environment which
tends to focus on shorter-term project-based funding. However, they
also reflect on how they managed to use smaller streams of funding to
sustain their relationship, and they highlight the importance of funding
arrangements to allow for space for collaborations to emerge.
Apgar et al. (this IDS Bulletin) also discuss how they tried to uphold
principles of mutual respect, reciprocity and accountability. They
document a partnership between the NGO Snowchange and the Skolt
Sámi people in Finland that aimed to restore ecologically damaged
parts of the Näätämö basin. This partnership was based on the Sámi
as agents and co-researchers in the Arctic climate-change assessments,
with Snowchange being a 'bridge' between the worlds of science and
IK. They reflect that the Skolt Sámi gained a sense of power from
seeing their language and culture valued in the research process, and
the process actually had the effect of revitalising Sámi knowledge
through the establishment of an archive. The institutional context for
this research mattered, however, and Apgar et al. acknowledge that the
historically undefined role of IK in Finland and the non-interference of
state agencies created a safe space for the Sámi to lead this process.
Ely and Marin (this IDS Bulletin) emphasise the fact that the
Transformative Knowledge Networks project, of which their two
case studies were part, was built on pre-existing relationships between
partners, where mutual trust had been established over a long period
extending back many years. Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) also discuss the importance that the long-term and pre-existing relationship
between partners played in their ability to work together in an enduring
partnership, based on mutual trust.
Oosterhoff and Shephard (this IDS Bulletin) reflect on the challenges
of a partnership between academics and creative artists, coming from
different sectors with different ways of working. They argue that the fact
that several members of the team had worked together previously and
were prepared to be flexible contributed to its success. They note that
these kinds of partnerships are time-consuming and iterative, and do
not fit into neat project frameworks.
Tandon et al. (this IDS Bulletin) discuss a particular type of partnership as a way of supporting the co-construction of knowledge: community– university partnerships. The literature on community–university engagement is vast and diverse, and what counts as engagement varies considerably (Tandon, Hall and Tremblay 2015). It can cover outreach, community service, service-learning, community engagement, civic engagement, community-based research, and community–university partnerships (ibid: 8). Tandon et al. (2015) argue that it is only the latter two that address 'the role of academics and the knowledge production capacities of universities as a means to creating social change and structural change' (ibid.: 8). Tandon et al. (this IDS Bulletin) argue that the co-construction of knowledge in these partnerships is not easy, and they argue for five pedagogical principles to support community-based research within these partnerships: (1) an orientation towards ethics and values; (2) a deep understanding of power and partnerships; (3) multiple methods of enquiry; (4) participatory learning and balancing theory and practice; and (5) thinking about the role of the research as a facilitator.
Glover and Silka (2013) have argued that who initiates a partnership
matters. Due to their knowing the funding environment, it is often
universities and research institutions themselves that initiate partnerships
with community organisations, NGOs, policymakers, etc based on
accessing certain funds (Oswald 2016). The universities become gatekeepers
to the funding, and this means that they get to set the agenda in terms of
research topic and outcomes, and as a consequence the '… limitations, bias
and subtle power differentials in such partnerships, never surface' (Glover
and Silka 2013: 46).
A further reason for working through enduring partnerships is to ensure
that our research has an impact. As already argued, through involving
multiple actors in the research process (engagement), impact can start
to be understood as something that happens throughout the research
process. Therefore, who we partner with, and why, is integral to who our
research impacts on. Pittore et al. (this IDS Bulletin) explain that they chose
to work with regional networks who they believed would be influential
in nutrition policy, and argue that by working through existing framings
already being used in those networks, their research would be more likely
to be used by policymakers. Ely and Marin (this IDS Bulletin) document a knowledge network in the UK on sustainable agri-food systems that
specifically partnered with producers and growers themselves in order to
involve them directly in undertaking the research, thus hoping to impact
directly on their growing practices, whilst also creating evidence of
alternative business models to share with policymakers.
6 What does an 'engaged excellent' researcher look like?
As should be clear by now, research that adopts an engaged excellence
approach is not business as usual. This approach has some very
real implications for the way in which we as researchers work and
correspondingly, the skills we need to have. Referring to a related set of
arguments about integrated, co-produced science and policy in relation
to the environment, Cornell et al. (2013: 68) argue that a researcher
would need the following capabilities:
Engaged research necessarily requires negotiation with those who we
partner and engage with, not just in the early stages of formation, but
throughout. That negotiation needs to be undertaken in a reflexive way
that respects and recognises the position, experience, knowledge and
skills each party brings to the partnership (Oswald 2016). Therefore, we
would add that researchers also need to be critically reflexive about their
own position and power. Dolan et al. (this IDS Bulletin) make a similar
argument, calling for a 'pedagogy of the undressed' (quoting Edström),
in that research 'needs to challenge us to reflect on how we are a part
of the structures we are aiming to change' (2015: 82). They call on us to
have 'transformative dialogues' about what engaged excellence means
with all our partners, and be alert to the politics of knowledge that we
are enmeshed in.
Apgar et al. (this IDS Bulletin) reflect on the role that researchers can
play as 'bridges' between science and IK, recognising that 'knowledge
production is a social process embedded in power dynamics'. This means that researchers need to be able to 'meaningfully navigate the interactions
between fluid, embedded and intimate knowledges' (ibid.). They recognise
that this role is not always a comfortable one for researchers to play, and
they reflect on their own position in research processes as simultaneously
guardians of knowledge, gatekeepers, and brokers, that required them to
be cognisant of power relations – especially their own power.
This has particularly significant implications for the ethics of our
research processes. Traditional ethical considerations in research tend
to frame research in terms of researchers and 'subjects', focusing on
the possible risks to those 'subjects'. The pillars of co-constructing
knowledge and forging enduring partnerships challenge that framing,
and call on us to think about the ethics of how we co-construct and
partner with others in the creation of knowledge, and how we ensure
that we are upholding the principles of cognitive justice. This requires
new ways in which to think about our ethical commitments and
accountability (Kajner et al. 2011).
All this has very real implications, not just for individual researchers
and those they relate with in their work, but for the institutional
structures in which research is embedded. The articles in this
IDS Bulletin only begin to allude to these broader challenges, which
include conventional structures of funding; of disciplinary and
departmental divisions; of the different incentives often in place for
academic researchers and practitioners; ethical frameworks that assume
we have research 'subjects'; and norms and models that treat research
and policy as separate. The articles in this IDS Bulletin, in exemplifying
the norms and practices of engaged excellence, show that these
challenges can be overcome – but this should not detract from ongoing
work to address these more structural and institutional features of the
research enterprise – something we are constantly seeking to reflect on
and address ourselves with respect to our institutional practices at IDS.
7 Conclusion
Debates around what constitutes good quality research, how we
co-construct knowledge, how our research has impact, and how we
develop and maintain enduring partnerships – the four pillars of an
engaged excellence approach – have been around a long time. There
has been a tendency in the research field to discuss them separately.
This introduction, and the articles in this IDS Bulletin, bring them
together to show that they are interrelated and mutually dependent, as
demonstrated in Figure 1.
The complexity and interrelationships become most real when we
apply these pillars in practice. The value of this IDS Bulletin is that
it helps us to see the challenges, trade-offs and difficulties of using
such an approach, while at the same time, the exciting possibilities for
contributing to a more cognitively just world in which our research
engages with those at the centre of the change we collectively wish
to see.
References
Benequista, N. (2011) Blurring the Boundaries: Citizen Action Across States
and Societies, Brighton: IDS
Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.;
Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J. and Mitchell, R.B. (2003) 'Knowledge
Systems for Sustainable Development', PNAS 100.14: 8086–91
Castleden, H.; Sloan Morgan, V. and Neimanis, A. (2010) 'Researchers'
Perspectives on Collective/Community Co-Authorship in
Community-Based Participatory Indigenous Research', Journal of
Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal
5.4: 23–32
Cornell, S. et al.(2013) 'Opening Up Knowledge Systems for Better
Responses to Global Environmental Change', Environmental Science
and Policy 28: 60–70
Edström, J. (2015) 'Undressing Patriarchy in the Male Order
Development Encounter', in M. Flood and R. Howson (eds), Engaging
Men in Building Gender Equality, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing
Funtowiczi, S. and Ravetzi, J. (2003) 'Post Normal Science', Internet
Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics, International Society for
Ecological Economics, http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
(accessed 14 December 2016)
Gaventa, J. and Bivens, F. (2014) 'Co-Constructing Democractic
Knowledge for Social Justice: Lessons from an International
Research Collaboration', in Jon Shefner, Harry F. Dahms, Robert
Emmet Jones and Asafa Jalata (eds), Social Justice and the University:
Globalisation, Human Rights and the Future of Democracy, New York NY:
Palgrave Macmillan
Glover, R. and Silka, L. (2013) 'Choice, Power, and Perspective:
The Neglected Question of Who Initiates Campus–Community
Partnerships', Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and
Engagement 6: 38–56
Haraway, D. (1988) 'Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in
Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective', Feminist Studies 14.3: 575–99
Hoffman, A.J. (2016) 'Reflections: Academia's Emerging Crisis of
Relevance and Consequent Role of the Engaged Scholar', Journal of
Change Management: Special Issue on Using Sport and Performance as Change (Part 2) 16.2: 77–96
IDS (2015) Engaged Excellence for Global Development, Strategy 2015–20,
Brighton: IDS
Jasanoff, S. (2004) 'The Idiom of Co-Production', in S. Jasanoff (ed.),
States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order,
New York NY: Routledge
Kajner, T.; Fletcher, F. and Makokis, P. (2011) 'Balancing Head and
Heart: The Importance of Relational Accountability in Community–University Partnerships', Innovative Higher Education 37.4: 257–70
Keeley, J. and Scoones, I. (2003) Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa, London: Routledge
Nowotny, H.; Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003) '"Mode 2" Revisited:
The New Production of Knowledge', Minerva 41: 179–94
Oswald, K. (2016) Interrogating an Engaged Excellence Approach to Research,
IDS Evidence Report 214, Brighton: IDS
Pietrykowski, B. (2015) 'Participatory Economic Research: Benefits
and Challenges of Incorporating Participatory Research into Social
Economics', Review of Social Economy 73.3: 242–62
Santos, B.S.; Nunes, J.A. and Meneses, M.P. (2008) 'Introduction:
Opening Up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of
Difference', in B.S. Santos (ed.), Another Knowledge is Possible: Beyond
Northern Epistemologies (Reinventing Social Emancipation: Toward New
Manifestos), London: Verso
Strier, R. (2011) 'The Construction of Community University
Partnerships: Entangled Perspectives', Higher Education 62.1: 81–97
Tandon, R.; Hall, B.L. and Tremblay, C. (2015) 'Introduction', in
B.L. Hall, R. Tandon and C. Tremblay (eds), Strengthening Community
University Research Partnerships: Global Perspectives, Victoria BC:
University of Victoria
Visvanathan, S. (2005) 'Knowledge, Justice and Democracy', in
M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds), Science and Citizens:
Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London: Zed Books
Wehrens, R. (2014) 'Beyond Two Communities – From Research
Utilization and Knowledge Translation to Co-Production?', Public
Health 128: 545–51
Williams, G. (2013) 'Researching with Impact in the Global South?
Impact-Evaluation Practices and Reproduction of "Development
Knowledge"', Contemporary Social Science 8.3: 223–36
Young, Eoin and Quinn, Lisa (2012) Making Research Evidence Matter:
A Guide to Policy Advocacy in Transition Countries, International Centre
for Policy Advocacy,
http://advocacyguide.icpolicyadvocacy.org/ (accessed 6 December 2016)
© 2016 The Authors. IDS Bulletin © Institute of Development Studies | DOI: 10.19088/1968-2016.196
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source
are credited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
The IDS Bulletin is published by Institute of Development Studies, Library Road, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
This article is part of IDS Bulletin Vol. 47 No. 6 December 2016: 'Engaged Excellence'