Session 1.2

Lessons from ID and TD Institutionalization in Socio-ecological Research in Brazil

Diego Pereira Lindoso, Gabriela Litre, Marcel Bursztyn

Universidade de Brasília, Brazil

The trajectory of the Center for Sustainable Development (CDS) of the University of Brasília (UnB) - one of the three top-ranked interdisciplinary centers in Brazil- can be seen as a laboratory showcasing the difficulties and possibilities of ID institutionalization in socio-ecological research in the country. In 2008, 13 years after the Center’s creation, a group of interdisciplinary researchers designed a first project to study land-use and climate change policy synergies and trade-offs. Since then, several research projects using both transdisciplinary (involving academics and non-academics in the production of knowledge) and interdisciplinary (integrating different disciplines) approaches have been conducted at CDS. We propose to analyze this pioneering experience by exploring how an initially epistemologically marginal ID/TD community in a university traditionally organized in disciplines gained room in a graduate program in Sustainable Development. Additionally, we will show a series of ad hoc, “circumstantial” factors contributing to the consolidation of this bottom-up ID initiative, including the growing national and global concerns on the Amazon conservation and climate change. Brazilian and international funding agencies started to promote R&D proposals on socio-ecological issues proposing ID/TD approaches. Furthermore, CDS’s projects were consolidated by its strategic geographical location: it is placed in the federal capital of Brazil (Brasília), just meters away from national government and research-financing agencies. In this politically favorable wind, the CDS’ ID research group developed nation-wide scientific collaboration networks and international projects. Additionally, the team adopted a flexible governance model combining the natural turnover of master's and doctoral students with the presence of a more stable core team from a variety of backgrounds (Humanities, Natural Sciences, Engineering). This structure contributed to maintaining an institutional and epistemological identity combined with creativity. Results included the development of an interdisciplinary theoretical-conceptual framework leading to national and international publications, and the refinement of TD methodologies in interaction with non-academic actors, including knowledge co-production activities and products. This epistemological “freedom” within CDS was limited by Brazil's unique and very strict accreditation and evaluation system for post-graduation programs, which holds sometimes obscure definitions of ID.

The experience of CDS’s ID/TD activities is a unique combination of top-down, government-led evaluation standards and ad hoc factors, including the initially favourable political context and the personal determination of a few scholars to promote ID/TD approaches in Brazil. Although it is impossible to draw any general lessons about ID/TD institutionalization in the University environment, some general features can be identified. First: ID/TD approaches are not antagonist to existing disciplines, but rather complementary; they should not be seen, either, as sources for “academic” or funding competition, but rather as opportunities for innovative collaboration. Second: scientists from disciplinary backgrounds and government education agencies evaluating ID/TD efforts need to develop skills to better communicate between each other and with non-academic actors at large. 

The coordination of challenge-driven research programs: lessons from three case studies

Laurens Hessels 1 & 2, Isabelle van Elzakker 1, Jos van den Broek 3, Leonie van Drooge 2, Jasper Deuten 1

1 Rathenau Instituut, The Netherlands; 2 Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University; 3 BrabantKennis, The Netherlands

Transdisciplinary research can make a crucial contribution to challenge-driven innovation policies. Governments show an increasing ambition to mobilize scientific research for systemic change that is needed to address societal challenges (Kuhlmann and Rip, 2018). Challenge-driven policies will require the mobilization of a mix of policy instruments, such as research and innovation funding, legislation, career incentives and a range of demand-side policies. Given the need for new knowledge both for understanding wicked problems and developing solutions, research programs will be a key instrument. However, the traditional way of organizing research programs will not be adequate to make sure they contribute to societal transitions. The principles of transdisciplinarity can be very helpful. This paper will identify essential elements for designing and managing challenge-driven programs, building on the framework by Schneider et al. (Schneider et al., 2019). Based on the literature, we first characterize challenge-driven programs in terms of their theory-of-change.

Then, we explore the requirements of challenge-driven research programs in three empirical cases: DARPA/ARPA-E (USA), the challenge-driven innovation programs of VINNOVA (Sweden), and the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security program of CGIAR (global scope). The analysis of the three cases was primarily based on primary and secondary documents, complemented by a couple of in-depth interviews. Our paper will compare the program management approaches of the three cases, distinguishing between program management, project support and portfolio management, and then identify requirements for challenge-driven research programs.

Our analysis shows how a challenge-driven approach requires rethinking the design, management and governance of research programs through all stages of the program. In addition to the importance of coordination between program and project level, our cases illustrate the importance of continuous coordination between the program and the dynamics of the societal transition the program aims to contribute to. This requires a more active role of the management of the program. Because of the focus on a societal challenge, broad stakeholder participation and portfolio management, program managers have to play during the complete program cycle. They need to continuously keep an eye on the connection between project activities and program goals, and intervene when necessary, for example by forging connections between projects, facilitating dissemination and knowledge exchange, or deciding to end certain projects or lines of research. Finally, reflexivity will be at the core of challenge-driven research programs. Monitoring and learning processes are crucial to enable continuous alignment between project activities, program goals and transition dynamics. 

Literature

Kuhlmann, S., Rip, A., 2018. Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy 45, 448-454.

Schneider, F., Buser, T., Keller, R., Tribaldos, T., Rist, S., 2019. Research funding programmes aiming for societal transformations: ten key stages. Science and Public Policy 46, 463-478.