Gasselin P. & Lavigne Delville P., 2014. "Why undertake action research in partnership?" in Faure G. et al. (Ed.), Innovating with rural stakeholders in the developing world: action research in partnership. Versailles: Quæ, CTA, Presses agronomiques de Gembloux. pp. 31-39. (original) (raw)
Related papers
From science and society to science in society: Towards a framework for ‘co-operative research
2005
Science and Society activities developed in the 6th Framework programme have the very specific role of questioning mainstream research and research-based policies. This is indeed a very useful role. It is important to bear in mind, especially when preparing the next Framework Programme, that the European Research Area vision is not only about contributing to European Industry competitiveness; it is not only about fostering coordination of European research; it is not only about underpinning other Community policies in their efforts towards more and better Europe. It is also, and probably more so, about better understanding what science is in today's society and about stimulating a continuous and fruitful societal debate on the big scientific issues ahead of us. Questioning our own activities, fostering change, adaptation and improvement is a sine qua non condition to avoid complacency and self-replicating structures. Such questioning is an essential feature of a renewed research policy at the dawn of this new century. Considering this "raison d'être", it would have been odd to stick to a classical approach while reflecting on new forms of European governance. Acts and words had to be put together, creating a space where people could build their own agenda with their own words and reflect together: this is how Gover'Science was born! Its aim was twofold. On one hand, to enrich current activities, both in terms of project activities and policy making, and on the other hand, to increase the robustness and efficiency of future strategies on how to articulate the interface between science, policies and society: how to really foster institutional and social change? How to identify future research issues and to revisit strategies in the field of Gover'Science? And, above all, how to translate words into action? From 'Science and Society' to 'Science in Society'
The scientific activity in the prism of the participative imperative
HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe), 2013
Within the last 20 years, the participation of lay-people in processes of research and innovation is getting the character of a guiding principle. A milestone within this debate was the study of Epstein (1996). He worked out that the AIDS-Activism movement in the US had an important influence on the ongoing process of research and its orientation by research agenda setting. The influence was both effective with regard to the research outcomes but also disturbing with regard to the order of scientific work by blurring the border between science and the public. In the meantime, a lot of studies were done with respect to the participation of non-academics in the field of scientific research, mostly in the area of healthcare (e.g. Brown et al. 2004). It is shown that these involvements are attractive for civil society actors due to the chance of research agenda setting, and for researchers due to the access to specific knowledge resources and human body materials. In other fields, like nanotechnology, there are also attempts for participation but the goals are quite different. They are mainly defined by the precautionary principle to avoid risk problems (e.g. Kaiser et al. 2010). Moreover, participation was generalized in innovation theory (Baldwin/Hippel 2011). In sum: participation of civil society actors is seen as a main resource for improving processes of research and innovation. In the meantime, the quest for participation is also integrated in the policy programs of the European Commission. Since the main goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the EU was to create a high competitive area of a knowledge-based economy, the change in the overarching innovation-regime by integrating different forms of knowledge and actors became a major project (Felt/Wynne 2007). One guiding principle articulated in this context is the one of Responsible Research and Innovation (e.g. von Schomberg 2013). While preparing for the next Framework Program "Horizon 2020", the idea of participation gets ready to be mainstreamed in the whole area of EU funded research and innovation. The main idea behind is to create acceptance for innovation while innovating and by making transparent the functional and cultural foundations of a new technology and to constitute "co-responsibility" (von Schomberg 2013:#) of civil society actors. This idea is not really new, but the long-ranging scope and the
Scientists and Civil Society Must Move Together toward a New Science
Frontiers in Public Health, 2016
In the current context of research and innovation that are increasingly driven by short-term industrial interests, science and technology require thorough social, political, ethical, and legal changes leading to better democratic control. A huge gap has opened between citizens and scientists, with the latter sometimes inspiring more mistrust than trust. Major health and environmental scandals of past years (for example, asbestos, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, PCBs, and nuclear disasters) may be related to this situation. To restore the links between science, policy makers, and civil society is a difficult task with many challenges. This involves (a) substituting a research approach strictly entrusted to the scientific community, with approaches based on a willingness to access and respect various forms of knowledge; (b) taking into account, at a very early stage in public research policy, the societal challenges of science and the tools for its democratic orientation; (c) expanding access to scientific knowledge in society, allowing those that are often wrongly called "ignorant" to interact with researchers in a balanced dialog and a co-construction of knowledge. How is it conceivable, for instance, to develop an agricultural research project without a close exchange and collaboration with those people who invented agriculture-not the researchers, or even the agronomists, but farmers? Moreover, in a knowledge society, in which innovation does not necessarily mean "progress, " citizens may be especially willing to participate in choosing scientific and technological orientations. Such a task implies in particular the setting up of systems enabling civil society to access opportunities to develop scientific knowledge, as well as for innovation and expertise (1). Participatory research, which is joint research work with equal partnerships between non-profit organizations from civil society or groups of citizens and academic researchers (from universities or major research organizations), is an integral part of this process of democratization of science. Several public programs successfully promote participatory research. Examples include the Canadian program of Community-University Research Alliances (ARUC) 1 ; several regional research programs in France, such as Partnerships between Institutions and Citizens for Research and Innovation (PICRI), 2 set up by the Region Ile-de-France under the leadership of the Fondation Sciences Citoyennes organization 3 ; and the Social Appropriation of Sciences (ASOSC), 4 developed by the Brittany Region. A project resulting from collaboration between researchers and actors of civil society often addresses a societal issue. Thus, participatory research involves mainly applied research projects and projects that fall within the field of expertise (health, environmental, ethical, etc.). For basic research, i.e., research that is conducted solely for the sake of increasing human knowledge, such collaborations are more difficult to consider, since this research generally falls into skills that are specifically those of scientists. However, citizens can participate in some basic research projects, by collecting data on Conflict of Interest Statement: The opinions and conclusions in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the institutions with which he is affiliated:
STAKEHOLDER APPROACHES TO PLANNING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH BY MULTI-INSTITUTION GROUPS
The paper draws on recent developments in participatory research to design and test an approach to planning farmer participatory research, which explicitly involves a range of institutional actors in the process. Their different perspectives contribute to a shared understanding of the needs, wishes and abilities of different institutions and members of rural communities to contribute to the research process. The methodology has emerged from experience in a range of countries. It was explored during a project planning workshop in India and further insights are provided from work in Bangladesh and Bolivia. This experience suggests that the method may be particularly useful in participatory research planning, where a range of different institutions are involved and where partnerships are being built between non-government, government and/or academic organisations. The method provides tools and a process for effectively demonstrating differences in the expectations and contributions of different stakeholders and a means for negotiating acceptance of these. The process also helps to establish mutual perceptions. The paper emphasises the value of deconstructing the 'outsider' perspective as projects work towards institutional collaboration.
Ecological Econonomics, 2020
Open access at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106751\. Transdisciplinary research is a well-recognised approach to address complex real-world problems. However, the literature on a central aspect of transdisciplinarity, namely stakeholder involvement, largely lacks a reflection on its objectives. In response, we present a framework defining four general rationales for stakeholder involvement: normative, substantive, social-learning, and implementation objectives. We demonstrate the applicability of the framework and analyse how the design and processes of three collaborative research projects dealing with sustainable land management in Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America were affected by motivations to include stakeholders. Our assessment indicates that at the projects' outset, many scientists pursued a normative rationale and saw stakeholder involvement as a burden. In the course of the projects, the substantive objective became more relevant as being closely linked to the core mandate of scientists. The projects also aimed for social learning and implementation processes, which, however, did not remain uncontested among team members. Overall, our study indicates that jointly negotiating, clarifying, communicating, and reflecting the underlying objectives of stakeholder involvement can help developing more effective interaction strategies and clarifying expectations. The conceptual framework can guide a systematic reflective and reflexive practise and support the planning and co-designing of future transdisciplinary research projects.
2002-Alroe Kristensen-Towards a systemic research methodology-offprint
The recent drastic development of agriculture, together with the growing societal interest in agricultural practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the general methodology of agricultural research. This paper takes some steps towards developing a systemic research methodology that can meet this challenge -a general self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science, is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play, and ought to play, an important role in science -not only in form of constitutive values such as the norms of good science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter into the very process of science. This goes against the traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive objectivity implies that the communication of science must include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal, intentional, and observational context. In accordance with this, the learning process of systemic research is shown as a selfreflexive cycle that incorporates both an involved actor stance and a detached observer stance. The observer stance forms the basis for scientific communication. To this point, a unitary view of science as a learning process is employed. A second important perspective for a systemic research methodology is the relation between the actual, different, and often quite separate kinds of science. Cross-disciplinary research is hampered by the idea that reductive science is more objective, and hence more scientific, than the less reductive sciences of complex subject areas -and by the opposite idea that reductive science is necessarily reductionistic. Taking reflexive objectivity as a demarcator of good science, an inclusive framework of science can be established. The framework does not take the established division between natural, social, and human science as a primary distinction of science. The major distinction is made between the empirical and normative aspects of science, corresponding to two key cognitive interests. Two general methodological dimensions, the degree of reduction of the research world and the degree of involvement in the research world, are shown to span this framework. The framework can form a basis for transdisciplinary work by way of showing the relation between more and less reductive kinds of science and between more detached and more involved kinds of science and exposing the abilities and limitations attendant on these methodological differences.
Scientific research and social responsibility
2019
Contrary to the powerful image of ivory tower scholarship, aiming to make an impact on society has become an integral part of scholarly practices. This impact emerges through teaching, commercialization of research findings, public engagement, and advice for policy and practice. The latter role requires a solid scientific evidence base. Aligning science and policy is a well-known challenge. I describe ways in which actors ranging from individual scholars, to the organizations where they work, and macro-level players such as publishers, research funders and governments can help advance interaction and communication between the spheres of scholarship and policy. Using firsthand experience in negotiating the boundaries between research and decision making, I describe the context in which the European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors works and identify conditions which, in my personal view, make its scientific advice giving effective.